Ontario Premier Doug Ford has proposed to significantly reduce the number of Toronto city councillors just months before the fall municipal election.Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press
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
..................................................................................................................................
Democracy at stake
Nelson Wiseman, a University of Toronto political science professor, is likely right when he points out that “people outside of Toronto don’t give a damn about” Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s plan to cut almost in half the municipal government of North America’s fourth-largest city (Tory Forges Plan to Fight Ford’s Council Cuts, July 30).
Yet if they care at all about democracy and representation, they should.
I would ask residents of Oakville, Ont., how they would feel about having a municipal government of just two people? North Bay or Thunder Bay having but one representative? Hamilton getting by with a group of five?
Because those levels of representation, more or less, are equal proportionately to what Mr. Ford is proposing for Torontonians, and that’s unacceptable no matter the size of a city or town.
Stephen Beaumont, Toronto
......................................................
I have to tell Dr. Wiseman that people outside Toronto do give a damn about what is happening in Toronto and to city council. This authoritarian act of Mr. Ford will be soon expanded to other municipalities. I live in neighbouring Thornhill, and I am sure we will all be affected by his further legislative acts. A democratic society needs participation of its citizens, not commands.
Shahrzad Manouchehrian, Thornhill, Ont.
......................................................
I listened to Mr. Ford justify his rash decision to almost halve the size of Toronto city council by complaining that he had attended council sessions where they debated one issue for 10 hours, and then all voted the same way. Where Mr. Ford sees inefficiency, I see the very essence of democracy at work: opinions voiced, listened to, accommodated, and a consensus arrived at.
This is the process he wishes to undermine, failing to appreciate that a quick decision isn’t necessarily a wise decision – and unwise decisions can be extravagantly costly.
Philip Shepherd, Toronto
See you in court
David Butt’s column presents a compelling case as to why the courts might reasonably be expected to prevent Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s last-minute interference in Toronto’s municipal elections scheduled for this October today (Toronto, Go To Court, July 30).
Another avenue for achieving the same result is also worth considering. The federal Parliament has the right, under our Constitution, to disallow provincial legislation. The power has rarely been used, and rightly so.
However, when a provincial government disregards the democratic norms of our country as egregiously as Mr. Ford proposes to do, then the extraordinary use of the disallowance power, to the extent necessary to require adequate public consultation on Mr. Ford’s proposal before implementation, would be more than justified. The people of Toronto deserve at least that.
Peter Love, Toronto
Forgotten fencer
The article on Imran Khan mentions many worthy athletes who have become politicians, all men (Cricketer Imran Khan Rising To Top Of List Of Athletes Turned Politicians, July 27). How disappointing.
The article fell short in failing to include the great French épée fencer, Laura Flessel. This marvelous sportswoman won medals in international competitions too numerous to mention, including Olympic gold. She is now serving in the government of French President Emmanuel Macron as minister of sport. Laura Flessel, one of the great ones; please remember her name and her sport.
Susan Stewart, Vancouver
Friends with a bully?
J.L. Granatstein says “by talking tough to the United States on NAFTA and tariffs … Justin Trudeau’s government has painted itself into a corner” (We Don’t Have To Like It, But America The Bully Is Our Best Friend, July 28). His contention seems disingenuous at best.
Mr. Granatstein is no doubt aware that Canada’s negotiating position cannot begin with a groveling accession to our negotiating partner’s every wish. I expect that Mr. Granatstein also knows that our current negotiations run down many different tracks, as both federal and provincial actors engage with state governments, Congress, U.S. business leaders, the Trump administration, public opinion and so on.
Out of all this, we will arrive at a new set of working relationships that will continue to evolve. The United States is not a bully to be appeased, nor is Canada a cowering victim.
The rhetoric of bullying and accepting victimhood that Mr. Granatstein deploys is simplistic and unhelpful.
Matt Bergbusch, Montreal
Guns or no guns
Toronto Mayor John Tory has posed the question: “Why does anyone in this city need to have a gun at all (Would A Ban On Guns Save Lives? July 28)?”
Nobody “needs” a gun but citizens who “want” a gun should not be denied the opportunity.
The statistics in Canada support the fact we should be more worried about dying in a car accident or by simply walking or cycling. The leading cause of homicide is “stabbing” and you are twice as likely to be killed as a pedestrian or a cyclist in Canada than a murder victim who is shot.
As regrettable as the Danforth Avenue shooting rampage was, there will be three times as many Canadians killed driving, walking and cycling as there will be gun-related deaths (including suicide) in any given year.
Please let’s not lose sight that cars operated by drunk and distracted drivers are far greater killers than random mentally disturbed individuals with a handgun.
Robert Dale, Toronto
......................................................
Banning – or severely restricting – handguns has been clearly shown to be an imperfect but highly successful strategy for reducing gun violence in both Australia and Britain, and it seems oddly disingenuous that we would ridicule and dismiss it as knee-jerk when it applies to Canada (Itchy Trigger Finger, July 30).
It is impossible to understand and solve the complex array of reasons that criminals and desperados of every stripe use a gun to shoot others, and while I care about their motives, it’s not a social issue we can really solve.
But we can address the actual ownership of weapons, as that has clearly been demonstrated to reduce gun crimes in other countries, and that is what really interests me.
Why would we willfully ignore the glaring evidence that the actual possession of a gun is the main problem? As the saying goes, “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Paul Thiessen, Vancouver
......................................................
We’d have no problem keeping handguns off the street if they were all manufactured by Bombardier.
Natalia Mayer, Toronto