Like father, like son
Re “Stephen Lewis: a man of moral vision” (April 2) and “To the left?” (Letters, April 2): I’m amused by those who praise Stephen Lewis for his political and humanitarian achievements, then worry that Avi Lewis, whose idealism is similar to his father’s, will drag the NDP “too far to the left.”
Vincent Manis Burnaby, B.C.
Power out
Re “A low-carbon future needs an electric jolt” (Editorial, March 28): You can’t decarbonize a modern economy without a lot more electricity. That’s table stakes.
But generation is the easy headline. I see grid architecture and market design as where this whole thing lives or dies. Transmission connections, capacity markets and dispatchable baseload are the hard politics.
Canada doesn’t just have a supply problem, it has a congestion pricing problem and a fragmented regulatory regime that turns electrons into provincial hostages. Add in the lack of firm capacity incentives and you get underinvestment in reliability just when electrification demands the opposite.
The missing move isn’t more of everything, but a national capacity market paired with accelerated permitting for transmission corridors. Price reliability properly and capital will show up.
Otherwise, we’re building a clean grid that works beautifully – except when it matters. An energy system that blinks at the wrong moment fails economically and erodes public trust in the entire transition.
Dave Suchanek Oakville, Ont.
Re “Doug Ford says he’s hearing love for Canada on trip to Texas” (April 2): I hope Doug Ford will learn that Texas, although the top U.S. oil- and gas-producing state, is also a top producer of renewable energy, with about one-third of electricity coming from wind and solar. And battery storage is growing.
It would be a good balance to the expensive nuclear energy that Mr. Ford is splurging on in Ontario.
Michael Levin Toronto
Keep ‘em separated
Re “Here’s what it would take for a province to lawfully separate from Canada” (Opinion, March 28): I have a lot of respect for contributor Stéphane Dion, but the Constitutional decision of our Supreme Court was quite clear: There is no right under Canadian or international law for any province to separate.
The decision did refer to a duty to negotiate, but this was more of a moral duty to respond to a referendum, not a legal duty. Our Constitution would also need amendment, which takes two-thirds of the provinces and the federal government. And the court never said how to amend it if any province left unilaterally.
The need for unanimity was largely done to reassure Quebec. Mr. Dion’s position seems to be that it is now easier for any province to leave, because there cannot be key constitutional amendments if they are not relatively minor.
Requiring unanimity is a recipe for disaster or extortion by a single member, as has been the case in NATO.
Brian Graff Toronto
Contributor Stéphane Dion notes the Supreme Court mentioned a “clear majority” at least 17 times in its opinion, but it declined to state exactly what constitutes one.
One thing should be certain: A “clear majority” is different than a bare majority. Any politician, such as late Jack Layton, who claims a 51-per-cent majority should trigger succession negotiations is conflating two distinct concepts.
Penny Gill Hamilton
Between the lines
Re “Clarity in the law of Aboriginal title is not optional” (Opinion, March 28): In the Cowichan Tribes decision, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young distinguished between publicly and privately held lands that the First Nation had been unlawfully deprived of in the 19th century. In a carefully reasoned judgment, she placed the onus on the governments responsible for this wrongdoing. Her hope was that potential conflicts could be resolved through negotiations.
The contributor quotes an op ed of mine (“How can Canada reconcile Aboriginal title and the rights of people with property on that land?” – Sept. 9, 2024), but ignores the bulk of it in which I argued, contrary to his opinion, that as a matter of law these government grants have always been invalid. My suggestion that compensation be paid was a political option designed to achieve a measure of justice for all concerned.
Contrasted with this, the contributor seems to favour fee simple landowners, including public municipalities, over wronged First Nations. This is hardly the way to promote the reconciliation envisaged by the Supreme Court.
Kent McNeil Emeritus distinguished research professor, Osgoode Hall Law School; Toronto
The B.C. government has acknowledged that Haida Gwaii, home of the Haida First Nation, is subject to Aboriginal title.
In May, a trial expected to run 300 days will determine the historical damages suffered from the commercial timber removed from their lands. The raw log value of the removed forest may approximate $16-billion.
Nearly all land in British Columbia is Crown land, nearly all of which overlaps First Nation traditional territory, which in turn is subject to claims of Aboriginal title. Much of that land has been commercially logged over time.
There are more than 200 First Nations in the province. Only a handful of treaties have been finalized, and even those leave open claims to Aboriginal title or damages relating to interference with such claims.
It is time B.C. taxpayers, in particular, had a conversation about whether we can afford to continue paying out claims over Aboriginal title.
William Pearce KC, Victoria
The question before the courts in the Cowichan and Wolastoqey cases has been unsettled in the law for decades, as noted by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Barbara Young in her decision. It should be sufficient to refer to the Uashaunnuat decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020, where four justices concurred in stating that “the interaction between Aboriginal title claims and third parties’ property rights remains unsettled.”
I think Justice Young is wrong in thinking that both Aboriginal and fee simple titles can exist for the same land (at least at the same time). But, in fairness, she faced a complex question that is far from settled.
Jim Reynolds Author, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law: A Critical Introduction; Vancouver
Did you hear the one…?
Re “In Finland, the secret to finding happiness is to not try” (Opinion, March 28): My community is home to many of Finnish heritage, who in turn are the source of many good jokes.
My favourite: A Finnish man loved his wife so much, he almost told her.
Rebecca Dickson Kaministiquia, Ont.
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