Prime Minister Justin Trudeau listens to a question during a news conference, in Ottawa, on Feb. 17.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
One for all
Re “Recent health care deal is a win for retirees. The finances of younger Canadians are collateral damage” (Report on Business, Feb. 17): I am one of those older people. I think this is a transactional view of public goods and funding mechanisms that ignores longer-term societal benefits.
A small example: I have not had children in school for many years, yet my income and property taxes fund an education system for younger adults and their children. There are many examples where my taxes fund public goods with no direct benefit to me. Yet I benefit, as do we all, from the functioning of the overall system paid for by us all, for the benefit of all, based on needs and means.
My bigger concern is the ability of governments to understand long-term changes in society – demographics, technology and so on – and maintain a humane, equitable and funded set of public goods.
This is certainly complex, and unintended consequences are rife. But the evidence so far is decidedly mixed.
John Madill Oshawa, Ont.
Government powers
Re “Israel’s legal reforms look awfully Canadian – and that’s not good” (Feb. 15): The proposed Israeli override does not stand alone. It is part of a comprehensive effort to effectively nullify Israel’s Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty.
Legislation before the Knesset would give the government control over judicial appointments. It allows the invalidation of legislation only if a claimant satisfies a heavy burden of proof and secures an unanimous decision by all 15 judges (henceforth government-appointed) of the Supreme Court. Later stages of these “reforms” will reportedly dismantle the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty itself.
The presence of a broad override (much broader than the Canadian version) would be problematic enough. But more problematic is the likelihood there will be nothing to override. The institutional changes would make it unimaginable that any legislation, no matter how outrageous, will in fact be invalidated.
Columnist Andrew Coyne says that the Israeli proposals “look awfully Canadian.” No: To us, they just look awful.
Lorraine Weinrib Professor emerita, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
Ernest Weinrib Professor emeritus, University of Toronto Faculty of Law
All in the family
Re “The notwithstanding clause is set to be another fissure between French and English Canada” (Feb. 16): It’s curious that while Quebec under René Lévesque was absent from the 1982 constitutional negotiations and never sought a notwithstanding clause, the province now finds that it is the “sine qua non to protect Quebec’s cultural and linguistic specificity.”
If so, this development is largely because of federal timidity in not applying disallowance when the need arose in 2019, with François Legault’s Bill 21 on banning religious symbols.
There would have been an uproar for sure, but perhaps moderated by disallowance being exercised by Justin Trudeau, son of Pierre Trudeau – thus providing Canadians with a timely reminder that federal powers of disallowance were retained by the senior Trudeau in the repatriation of Canada’s Constitution, for the very purpose of protecting against legislative attempts to set aside the Charter.
Darrell Roberts Vancouver
Ethics, ethics, ethics
Re “The Ottawa school for ethics dunces” (Editorial, Feb. 16): Liberal MP Greg Fergus stated that he makes a habit of consulting the Ethics Commissioner, and regrets not having done so before his ill-considered letter to the Canadian Radio-television Telecommunications Commission. Why would Mr. Fergus need to consult the Ethics Commissioner so frequently and routinely?
Is it because his regular activities as parliamentary secretary to Justin Trudeau take him so close to the boundary of unethical behaviour? Does he have such strained relations with his boss and with cabinet that he cannot casually ask them for advice on matters of ethics? Or has he reflected on Mr. Trudeau’s record of ethical lapses and concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice on such matters is, at best, worthless and, at worst, dangerous?
It makes sense that parliamentarians might consult the Ethics Commissioner on rare occasions. It also makes sense that something may be horrendously wrong when those consultations become habitual and regular.
Patrick Cowan Toronto
All aboard
Re “After the holiday chaos, Via Rail has melted down again – sadly this will continue” (Report on Business, Feb. 17): Contributor Greg Gormick documents Via Rail’s decline. His call for a balanced national transportation policy that includes passenger rail on equal footing with air, roads and water is a good start to reverse it. His call for partnerships with provincial governments would be good, too.
Let’s also require Canadian National Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway to make people the top priority on tracks, not freight. More frequent and faster passenger trains in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor would follow.
Steve New Victoria
As contributor Greg Gormick points out, Via Rail was never set up to succeed.
Unlike Amtrak in the United States, Via has no legislated mandate. While Amtrak is required by law to provide passenger rail service to Americans, Via has no mandate at all.
We are perennially at risk of the board of this Crown corporation making its own decisions to slash routes and service, or to privatize, without regard to the public interest in convenient, affordable and, preferably, carbon-neutral travel.
My private member’s bill to provide such a mandate is before Parliament. But without government support, it will, once again, die on the order paper.
Elizabeth May OC; MP, Saanich-Gulf Islands; Parliamentary Leader, Green Party of Canada Sidney, B.C.
In this corner
Re “Mohawk wrestler was ‘hugely influential’ during 1990 crisis” (Obituary, Feb. 14): Sixty-two years ago, a farm boy in Britain, entranced by the drama and the showbiz, cheered his head off while watching Billy Two Rivers defeat his opponent at Wellingborough’s modest Drill Hall.
I knew little of the world outside my village, but I rose in my seat when Mr. Two Rivers entered the ring. Among the usual bad guys, he stood out with class, pride and dignity.
I did not then recognize his regalia or even understand his culture, but I stood and cheered. When a baddie perpetrated a foul, the elderly man next to me shouted, “Give ‘im the old tomahawk chop, Bill-eee,” as though they were lifelong companions.
Mr. Two Rivers was a skillful athlete who could dive and roll his beefy frame across the canvas to outwit an opponent. He never bragged, but radiated pride.
To me, he was the very model of the good guy.
David Kipling Gibsons, 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