Prime Minister Mark Carney rises during Question Period on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Nov. 25.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Flying high
Re “From Washington to Iqaluit, Carney’s travels reveal a lot about his priorities” (Dec. 23): When watching elite sport, or attending a classical concert or ballet, in addition to the enjoyment of the spectacle, I reflect on the exceptional skills on display, far beyond what I could muster. I don’t remember ever thinking this way about a politician – until now.
Mark Carney has, in his first nine months as Prime Minister, materially changed the trajectory of our country in ways I could not have imagined. And I believe he is just getting started.
In spite of the woeful state of the world, I am more optimistic than I have been in a long time and look forward to the unfolding of a new, truly better Canada. I know it is un-Canadian to gush like this. Sorry.
Donald Hall Ottawa
This shows Mark Carney’s hard work and focus rebuilding Canada, in collaboration with the provinces, while finding and securing new markets to counterbalance continued trade aggression from the United States and, at the same time, collaborating with allies on international security in the face of ongoing conflicts.
Mr. Carney’s deal with Danielle Smith shows me how skilled he is at negotiating, compromising and mending bridges, as opposed to coming away empty-handed. In the face of a persistent and escalating U.S. economic onslaught and the consequent job losses across important sectors, rising poverty and erosion of the middle class, I believe he is the best possible Prime Minister for Canada.
Mr. Carney’s quiet intellect, careful diplomacy and thoughtful strategy are meeting the moment domestically and internationally. Our nation couldn’t possibly ask for more from a Prime Minister.
Glenna Jenkins Lunenburg, N.S.
Past precedent
Re “The Carney government’s crime victim legislation is bad constitutional law” (Dec. 22): Parliament is not trying to “overrule” the Supreme Court. Rather, Parliament is exercising its role to enact nuanced Charter-compliant legislation that addresses the societal problem of trial delays.
As established in R. v. Mills (1999), the judiciary does not hold a monopoly on rights protection. Rather, Parliament may build upon court decisions to develop alternative schemes that meet constitutional standards.
Elected legislatures must be free to interpret and apply the Charter afresh when drafting new laws for new circumstances. Ultimately, the role of Parliament is to enact reasonable laws justifiable in today’s free and democratic society, which the courts then review for constitutionality.
Lawyers always seem to want unelected judges alone to develop legislative policies. The courts themselves, like me, far prefer that elected parliamentarians contribute to, if not lead, policy dialogue.
Government’s attempt to finally address trial delays is good constitutional practice, and its specific proposal seemingly reasonable.
Paul Shuttle Ottawa
Talk it out
Re “Premiers need to discover the virtue of silence” (Dec. 22): Asking politicians to take a vow of silence instead of criticizing judges is asking a lot; however, with respect to the justice system, this feels like profound advice.
Canadians should take a lesson from what is happening to justice south of the border, where elected judges are publicly labelled as Democrat or Republican and routinely criticized by members of the other party. Along with the prejudicial prosecutions that are becoming routine, the world is learning that there seems to be little justice in Dodge City.
The U.S. administration is imposing many tariffs, partly to encourage investment in the country. What serious investor would place assets in a country with a biased, unsanctioned, improvised and corrupt justice system?
Jon Baird Uxbridge, Ont.
The Supreme Court overturned its own precedent in 2015, when it said there is a Charter right to strike. Were the justices smarter or did they do better research in 2015 compared to 1987?
The 2015 case, like others, was a split decision, with the current Chief Justice in the dissent stating: “The majority (at para. 1) now casts off these and other precedents and injects a one-sided view of “workplace justice” into s. 2(d) of the Charter. The majority has so inflated the right to freedom of association that its scope is now wholly removed from the words of s. 2(d).”
How can a right based “in law” be dependent on who gets to form a court majority? Or one can go with what former justice Rosalie Abella has stated: The Supreme Court is the final decision-maker of Canadian values.
Not exactly a compelling case for decisions based “in law.”
Jason New Foothills County, Alta.
Top down
Re “Cities need to overcome the fear of the first step in change” (Dec. 23): Congratulations to Winnipeg for putting people ahead of cars. And congratulations to Manitoba for allowing it to happen.
Here in Ontario, and more specifically in Toronto, despite electing a council and mayor to deal with issues of municipal concern, we have a provincial government under the rule of car-loving Doug Ford, who is known to overrule municipal leaders whenever he feels like it.
If only cities had the autonomy to run themselves, without threat of interference from higher levels of government, then maybe change could happen quicker.
Randy Tait Toronto
PWYC
Re “Travelling for a World Cup game this summer? Prepare for sky-high airfare and hotel costs” (Report on Business, Dec. 22): Why are FIFA, corporations, hotels, airlines and others benefitting from this tournament not paying $1-billion instead of Canadian taxpayers? Surely with these kinds of prices, there should be no need to go cap in hand to government.
Sure glad I am not a soccer fan during this time of severe price gouging.
Leon MacAulay Coldstream, B.C.
All the small things
Re “Why a well-chosen gift matters, no matter how small” (First Person, Dec. 23): More than 80 years ago, as my mother’s birthday approached, I wondered what I could buy her with my meagre sixpence-a-week pocket money (it didn’t stretch far, even in those days).
I headed off to the corner store at the end of our road. As I looked around for inspiration, I spotted a basket of clothespins on the counter. The price? Sixpence per dozen.
After a quick price-benefit analysis, I decided this would be the ideal gift. Mothers could always use clothespins, couldn’t they? Even more important, I could get so many for a mere sixpence.
When my mother unwrapped the gift on her birthday, she said she was very pleased; this was just what she wanted.
I’ve always considered myself a careful shopper, and it seems to have started early.
Susan Callaghan Toronto
..................................................................................................................................
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