Tony Staffieri, president and chief executive officer of Rogers Communications Inc., right, and Paul McAleese, president of Shaw Communications Inc., arrive at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology investigating the proposed acquisition of Shaw by Rogers, in Ottawa, on Jan. 25.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
Other options
Re South Africa Sides With Russia On Push For Redesigned Global Order (Jan. 24): It makes sense that middle powers would want to increase their say in global affairs and curb U.S. dominance. But South Africa cozying up to Russia makes no sense to me.
Africans have rightly pointed out the many ways in which European imperialism harmed them. Well, what does South Africa think Russia is doing in Ukraine?
There are plenty of middle powers South Africa could work with to redesign the global order. But working with Russia, during its war against Ukraine, makes me doubt the good faith of South African foreign policy or the type of global order it might design.
Liz Tinker Toronto
Public opinion
Re Seeking Asylum Is A Legal Human Right – Why Are We Treating It As The Opposite? (Jan. 24): In 2015, then-German chancellor Angela Merkel announced an open-door policy for refugee claimants. More than one million claimants from Syria and other countries took advantage. Public reaction was swift.
In the 2017 German election, for the first time in 50-plus years, a neo-fascist party elected members to the Bundestag, becoming the largest opposition party. Similar results have also been seen in Sweden, Italy and Hungary, where concerns over undocumented immigration have increased dramatically. A high price, indeed, is being paid for ignoring public opinion about migrants.
Canada’s treatment of Syrian refugees since 2015 respects public opinion. Claimants wishing to come here have their applications vetted. The public sees that control remains with their government.
Dealing with refugees in this way should, in the long run, be in their own best interests, and protect Canadian democracy from significant threats we are witnessing elsewhere.
Peter Love Toronto
Less is more?
Re Court Rejects Appeal To Block Rogers Takeover Of Shaw (Jan. 25): Unless the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry finds otherwise, Rogers and Shaw likely just got the go-ahead for their deal. How the Federal Court of Appeal found that “there was no substantial lessening of competition” seems to defy common sense.
Fewer competitors means less, not more, competition. Consumers will likely lose as the number of competitors in that market goes down by one.
My prediction: Canadian consumers will continue to pay some of the world’s highest telecom fees, and some will wonder why.
David Enns Cornwall, Ont.
Down we go
Re Courting A Fight Over Section 33 (Editorial, Jan. 25): Canada is spiralling down a vortex over Section 33 of the Constitution.
The notwithstanding clause came about to ensure legislative supremacy, to give provinces the last word on the scope of certain constitutional rights. As such, it appears axiomatic that if courts are permitted to review the nature or conditions of its use, that would defeat the purpose of legislative supremacy.
So, who gets the last word on fundamental rights in our constitutional democracy: legislatures or the courts? Back and forth we go. I fear the only choice will be to leave it subject to the whims of politicians like Doug Ford or Danielle Smith, or amend the Constitution, remove the notwithstanding clause and finally cast aside this albatross.
I know which option I prefer.
Nicole Chrolavicius Lawyer and lecturer, constitutional law, Osgoode Hall Law School; Toronto
New name
Re Why Should Sir John A. Take All The Blame For Canada’s Injustice To Indigenous Peoples? (Jan. 24): ”Talking is always better than tearing down.” It is time that more clear and accurate history is taught in schools.
And perhaps instead of tearing down statues, informative plaques could be added. Another fine quote: “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Patricia Ploughman St. John’s
What a foolish country we live in, where we would so readily eliminate the memory of former leaders to help ourselves feel better about life’s historical injustices.
Face reality: All our ancestors were racist, homophobic and misogynist, and held unpalatable attitudes about “the other.” Should we eliminate memory of them all? Can anyone imagine an American parallel that eliminates public references to slave owner George Washington?
Does the world still need more Canada, or just less of today’s Canada?
Ron Freedman Toronto
Yes, there are lots of John A. Macdonald things in Ottawa. Yes, replacement of one with an Indigenous name won’t hurt anyone. Doing so would even be a step, albeit a small one, toward reconciliation. So, yes, let’s reach for it.
When Macdonald is substituted on the parkway, I have no doubt it will be in an Indigenous language. Whichever language is selected, signs should include phonetic spellings in English and French. Efforts at reconciliation would be best served if Canadians can properly and respectfully pronounce Indigenous names and words as they are introduced to the public.
To answer the question of why Macdonald should take all the blame, the answer may be that he was more than a “symbol” of a colonizing state. As he so proudly said, “A British subject I was born – a British subject I will die.”
Macdonald was a significant agent of colonization.
Greg Schmidt Calgary
I’ve always admired the winner of the long-ago CBC contest to create a Canadian version of, “As American as apple pie.” The winner was the humdinger, “As Canadian as possible, under the circumstances.”
Columnist John Ibbitson topped that: “Canada is far from perfect, but it is arguably the least imperfect country on Earth.” And in case our heads start to swell, he adds: “if the embrace of diversity is your measure.”
Truly as Canadian as possible.
Valerie Wyatt Victoria
Dig in
Re Morneau Wanted Ex-prime Ministers To Address Sussex Drive Decline (Jan. 24): The reticence to renovate 24 Sussex for fear of political backlash is quite understandable; the historical precedent of scandals borne of pettiness and misunderstanding is, unfortunately, quite real. But therein lies the solution.
If the National Capital Commission were independently mandated to manage the issue, politicians could be buffered from direct scrutiny. The NCC could make its first step to gut the interior and openly publish its findings on the building’s electrical system and the quality of its structural timber.
Make the project a case study on architectural and engineering refurbishment (that’s what it is). The more scientific it is, the drier the topic and the more disinterested the public will become, thus removing the public-relations straitjacket that’s holding up the job.
Peter Reinecke Building scientist, Ottawa
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