June 28: Serving up electoral reform. Plus other letters to the editor

Open this photo in gallery:

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

..................................................................................................................................

Electoral reform? Pick a flavour

Re B.C Asks The Right Question The Wrong Way (June 27): Like British Columbia, Prince Edward Island is set to hold its third referendum on electoral reform at its next provincial election.

You gloss over the fact that PEI used a preferential ballot for its 2016 plebiscite on electoral reform. It was an unmitigated disaster – with barely 35-per-cent turnout (in a province that regularly gets over 80-per-cent voter-participation rates) – with Islanders left wondering what the hell did each of the five options on offer actually mean. Confusion and apathy reigned supreme.

Unlike B.C., though, this time the question here will be more straightforward: “Should Prince Edward Island change its voting system to a mixed-member proportional voting system?” But rather than a query tilting toward altering the status quo, as it seems in the case of B.C., many are wondering whether the question on PEI actually favours those who prefer the status quo.

Consequently, that raises the pertinent issue of why we’re having a referendum on electoral reform in the first place, if the mainline political parties on PEI want it to fail.

Peter McKenna, Chair, Political Science Department, University of Prince Edward Island

............................................................

While we are glad to see The Globe and Mail seriously considering supporting electoral reform in B.C., your suggestion that the second question is less fair because we wouldn’t use this approach to elect MLAs is specious. A better analogy is that we’re being asked to pick a dessert.

Question No. 1 offers us a choice between something rather unappealing (say, tapioca pudding) and something most people around the world find delicious (say, ice cream).

Question No. 2 asks: If we choose ice cream, what flavour do we want? That is, the three proportional options are so similar to one another, they’re more like different flavours than completely different things.

In addition, the two-part question ensures that everyone, even those who prefer tapioca, have a say in picking the flavour of ice cream. The approach you advocate would deny tapioca-likers any such input, and we feel that to deny them that voice would be highly undemocratic.

Antony Hodgson, president, Fair Voting BC

North. And South

Re Where Faith And Beauty Bloom (Folio, June 27): How ironic. We witness how “faith and beauty” can bloom in Edmonton as a gift to all Canadians from the Aga Khan’s Ismaili Muslim community, while across the border we witness an ugly nationalistic agenda against Muslim countries deemed “a threat to U.S. national security” as justified by the “moral authority” of a leader who is demonstrating anything but (Trump’s Nationalistic Agenda Gets Boost As Supreme Court Upholds Travel Ban, June 27).

As for beauty, in the eyes of the world, the appeal the United States once had is fading very fast.

Leo J. Deveau, Halifax

Sexism in the sciences

Re To End Sexism In The Sciences, Women Must Advocate For Themselves (Opinion, June 23): Simply advising women in the sciences to stand up for themselves is not enough. Careers are still built largely on references and connections. Young researchers can be understandably wary of calling out a superior if they know future success relies on that person’s support. Yes, women should feel empowered to shut down inappropriate behaviour. They must also feel secure that doing so will not harm their lives and careers in more insidious ways.

Sexism in the sciences and elsewhere is rarely so overt; it lives in the unconscious bias that sees men promoted before women, that sees so few women speakers at science conferences, and so on. Sexism does not always equate to sexual harassment. It is this systemic rot that we must dig out, and which should not be so glibly discounted.

Tenille Bonoguore, Waterloo, Ont.

The Minister replies

Re How To Keep Our Borders Open And Safe (June 23): Your editorial correctly notes the increased pressure on our asylum system in the past year, and calls for more resources to deal with this influx and to help decide claims in a more timely fashion. However, it fails to note that the government is doing just that.

The government has $173.2-million in this year’s budget to help manage irregular migration, including $74-million over the next two years for the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) to hire more decision makers – at least 50 in the Refugee Protection Division (RPD), and 14 in the Refugee Appeal Division (RAD), along with the required support staff. By fall, the IRB anticipates it will have a full complement of staff.

With this funding and the added staff, the IRB should be able to finalize an additional 17,000 claims for refugee protection, and more than 3,000 refugee appeals by March 31, 2020, over and above what they are already funded to do.

Far from “punishing” genuine refugees, as your editorial says, the government is committed to helping vulnerable populations.

We will welcome 27,000 refugees in 2018 – an increase from 25,000 in 2017 – with more growth in 2019 and 2020.

Ahmed Hussen, Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

Conservative values

Re Stephen Harper Finally Reveals His Hidden Agenda (June 26): Goldy Hyder’s basic premise is that Stephen Harper is “a leader among conservatives.” Mr. Harper was one of the key figures responsible for killing off traditional conservatism in Canadian federal politics. The real hidden agenda, of course, is that he is an American-styled neo-conservative, who espouses neo-liberal theories which are antithetical to true conservative values.

Clive Baugh, Hamilton

Big marijuana, big deal

Re The Dazzling Deceit Of Big Marijuana (June 23): The same dire things could have been said as alcohol became commercialized. It was pretty easy to build a still and produce your own booze back in the day; it took time for companies to refine their products and grow their market, and the same will happen with marijuana. Perhaps we will not put up with mediocre product for years the way we did with beer; perhaps the “craft” marijuana brands will find a place alongside the lower-priced large producers.

Many of us prefer to be law-abiding. Once we can get our favourite cannabis legally, the market for illegal bud likely will largely dry up, much like the market for illegal hooch.

Hope Smith, Calgary

............................................................

Believe it or not, many of us do not use cannabis now, have not done so in the past, have no intention of doing so in the future and are sick and tired of reading stories about the wretched stuff. Cannabis will be legally available on Oct. 17. Enough already, please.

David Amies, Lethbridge, Alta.