Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
......................................................................................................
Not assured by CSIS
Michel Coulombe, director of CSIS, writes: "Canadians can be assured that everything that CSIS does is consistent with Canadian law and Canadian values. Frankly, we would have it no other way" (CSIS Replies – letters, Aug. 4).
Under the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, CSIS can obtain a warrant to "contravene a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." I would have it another way – the elimination of that and related clauses, plus stringent oversight.
Elizabeth Woods, Victoria
...................................
CSIS director Michel Coulombe's response is disingenuous at best. Bill C-51 converted CSIS from an intelligence-gathering agency to one with power to take action in Canada or on foreign soil, violate the Charter, and do so without sharing its plans with the RCMP or other law-enforcement or security agencies.
When breaking Canadian laws or violating the Charter in Canada, CSIS needs permission from one Canadian judge sitting alone, without any appeal, without any advocate for the public interest present (as is the case in granting security certificates). No other democracy has ever allowed a warrant for constitutional breach.
Meanwhile, security experts point out that this kind of covert operation with no co-ordination among spy agencies will make Canadians less secure. The scenarios are not hard to conjure. Take the most recent example from B.C. of entrapment of hapless non-terrorists. Throw in a covert CSIS operation to disrupt the plot. It will not make us more secure.
Elizabeth May, Leader, Green Party of Canada
...................................
A rigged process?
Re Trump's Claim That Electoral Process Is 'Rigged' Poses Challenge To Essence Of U.S. Democracy (Aug. 4): If Donald Trump seeks further proof that democracy in the United States is rigged, he need look no further than the bizarre, Byzantine and anti-democratic method by which the president is in fact elected, namely not by global popular vote, but rather by the elite group of electors who make up the Electoral College, themselves nominated by each state legislature.
Moreover, the method by which they are selected and their precise mandate varies from state to state – far from democratic uniformity. The main reason the landed gentry who framed the U.S. Constitution inserted this check was precisely to prevent a Trump-like, semi-ignorant demagogue from ever being elected president by the great unwashed.
The fact that one of Georgia's Electoral College delegates has just resigned, rather than vote for Donald Trump as was expected of him, is surely a sign that the Founding Fathers' intention will be put to the test in November.
Alan Scrivener, Cornwall, Ont.
...................................
Benched strength
Re How To Judge Who's The Right Judge (editorial, Aug. 4): One of the failings of our democracy is the pervasive use of process by politicians so they appear to be doing something while often achieving little or nothing.
The hue and cry over how judges are appointed to the Supreme Court is the latest example. The sitting justices are not doing a poor job. Quite the contrary: The court has carried out its duties admirably. But that is not what our leaders are on about, they want more process, involving more politicians of course, to show that they are doing something about selecting judges.
They want more process, apparently just to have more process.
We have major issues in Canada, such as anything and everything to do with our aboriginal population, climate change, health care, revitalizing our infrastructure, and the widely skewed distribution of wealth. Issues like these are far more worthy of the attention of our leaders than creating a judicial bandwagon to jump on.
David Kister, Toronto
...................................
Political leaders are beginning to realize that the appointment of judges can have dramatic and lasting impact on Canadian law and society because of the important Charter of Rights decisions our judges are now being asked to make. This brings a risk that our courts could become highly politicized, that appointments could be based on ideology, that judges could be seen to be voting a "party line." In other words, there is a risk that the appointment process and the court itself could start to resemble the American example and U.S. Supreme Court.
In recent years, we have examples of judicial appointments which were apparently driven by ideology and an attempt to fashion a court likely to make decisions in accordance with that ideology.
The Prime Minister's new appointment process does not guarantee that we will not eventually follow the U.S. example. The PM still has the last say. A future PM could do as he or she wishes. But the use of an independent, non-partisan body to propose names to the Prime Minister makes it more likely, at least for now, that appointments will be based on merit and not on ideology and that our courts will remain non-politicized and non-partisan.
David W. Howell, Hamilton
...................................
Your editorial does not address the most significant shortcoming in this process – the fact that all appointees to the Supreme Court must be bilingual. This will severely limit the opportunities for exceptional jurists from the Western and Atlantic provinces to be considered, while potentially providing an overabundance of applicants from Quebec and, to a lesser extent, New Brunswick.
While this policy may initially appear desirable, its effect will be to eliminate many excellent candidates from consideration.
If the government's objective is to have the court's composition reflect Canada's diversity, it should not be necessary to require functional bilingualism of every applicant. Why not require the court to have the same percentage of bilingual justices as Canada has bilingual Canadians?
Brian Dougall, Kanata, Ont.
...................................
Race and real estate
Re Why B.C.'s Tax On Foreign Nationals Is Unlawful (Aug. 3): Sean Rehaag, a law professor no less, states categorically that the new B.C. transfer tax is aimed at curtailing real estate investment specifically from China.
He says "we all know" this to be the case – the bandwagon fallacy. The historic examples of anti-Chinese practices he cites are not evidence of anti-Chinese discrimination in this case. The implication in the argument is that if the same amount of investment were coming from some non-Chinese source, say Denmark, then the B.C. government would have taken no action to curtail it.
Is there any evidence of that?
Of course not, yet he plays the race card anyway. I hope his students are not allowed to get away with such sloppy reasoning.
James A. Duthie, Nanaimo, B.C.
...................................
Of course there is an element of anti-Chinese racism in this new tax, which attempts to bring down housing prices in Vancouver. Had these been, let's say, predominantly Scots (rather than Chinese) buying up million dollar-plus homes (presumably trying to escape from Brexit?!), would there have been the same "concern"? (Notwithstanding, of course, some Vancouverites' fear of the sound of bagpipes in the morning.)
Wayne Gibson, Toronto