Leaves displaying changing fall colours are seen at Ontario Place in Toronto, on Oct. 4.Chris Young/The Canadian Press
Use case
Re “If it’s easy to override the Charter, then what’s protecting Canadians’ rights?” (Oct. 11): There is a possible solution.
If the courts interpret the notwithstanding clause as akin to a form of martial law, then its use would be justified only in times of war, rebellion or natural disaster – when the institutions of democracy and civil society are in real jeopardy.
Christopher Albertyn Toronto
Fundamental freedoms that exist at the pleasure of the government of the day aren’t fundamental.
Sean Tucker Regina
Elsewhere
Re “Canada’s tax regime weighs on the economy – if not now, when do we reform it?” (Report on Business, Oct. 11): Never mind the convoluted and bloated tax regime (which, by the way, was supposed to be a temporary war measure, more than a century ago). I believe carbon pricing is what’s killing the economy and crushing Canadians.
Something could also be said about out-of-control government spending and inflation, but I guess that ought to be for a different letter.
Michel Trahan Maria, Que.
More costs
Re “Danielle Smith may be grandstanding, but Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations do need a fix” (Oct. 11): As well, the Clean Electricity Regulations limit peaking units to operating a maximum of 450 hours a year.
If this regulation is enforced, electricity providers requiring additional peaking capacity could be forced to purchase additional units to meet the load. To meet the cost of new units, electricity prices would need to rise.
Larry Hughes Halifax
Road to…
Re “Round and round” (Letters, Sept. 30): Canada’s road-traffic mortality rate is double that in Britain, as per data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
On a single drive through Halifax last week, I encountered the usual: cut-ins, tailgating and drivers texting, eating and doing makeup at the wheel. Britain has pervasive speed cameras and fines up the wazoo; Wales has a country-wide limit of 20 miles (32 kilometres) per hour.
Canada has a complete free-for-all.
Anthony Vandersteen Halifax
Build what?
Re “Toronto needs more waterfront wow” (Oct. 7): “That is why the plan to redevelop Ontario Place is so welcome.”
Surely that doesn’t mean the Therme plan, which calls for a mega-spa, a parking lot that could cost $600-million and the destruction of as many as 1,500 trees. A plan shrouded in secrecy that puts a public asset in private hands for 95 years.
A far better idea would be for the Ford government to put that kind of money into enhancing the natural oasis that already exists at Ontario Place. Plant more trees, create more beaches, build more boardwalks, make it all easily accessible.
That would give our waterfront the “wow” it needs.
Nicholas Jennings Toronto
Seems to me that the main attraction of the waterfront is the water. We shouldn’t have any more buildings that block the view.
Dot Quiggin Toronto
How about a few more restaurants, bars and cafés? Sydney, Australia, and Cape Town, South Africa, are excellent examples of how to create vibrant, people-friendly waterfronts.
Art Brewer Toronto
First we should create the necessary space for a meaningful urban park.
This can be accomplished by rerouting Lake Shore Boulevard from Spadina Avenue to Jameson Avenue to run in the shadow of the Gardiner Expressway, thus creating an uninterrupted playground marrying Ontario Place to Exhibition Place and the city beyond.
Some of the old industrial structures along the route can be converted into academies of art. Urban architects can find ingenious way to create pedestrian walkways to the CN Tower, Fort York National Historic Site and other tourist nodes that would fall beyond a park’s perimeter.
One important addition should be a must: a world-class art gallery. Perhaps a location on the edge of the lake would do? And, of course, a park would be car-free.
Only then can we take tourists to our waterfront and say, “Voilà.” Only then can they say, “Wow.”
Karim Durzi Toronto
There’s a wonderful opportunity coming up to consider alternative uses for Toronto’s island airport lands: the city lease for a significant portion of it expires on June 30, 2033.
If it is not renewed, the airport closes. Once closed, 215 acres of publicly owned waterfront property becomes available.
For what? We think they can be an exciting addition to the island park, making it as large as New York’s Central Park. Now should be the time to dream, the time for a wide-ranging public exploration of the possibilities for these lands.
And what of Porter Airlines, which has had a near-monopoly at the airport? It reported large losses even pre-pandemic, is cutting back flights out of the island and is increasingly focused on flights out of Pearson International Airport – that’s where its future seems to lie.
History tells us the island airport is where airlines fail. Remember City Express?
Brian Iler Spokesperson, Parks not Planes; Toronto
The idea that Toronto’s waterfront needs more “big things” to drive economic development feels like an outdated 20th-century notion.
Most progressive cities understand that scarce waterfront space should not be the location for showy global headquarters or massive single-purpose tourist attractions. Instead, they find the “wow” factor in spectacularly designed public spaces such as New York’s Brooklyn Bridge Park and Toronto’s future Promontory Park at the new mouth of the Don River.
The future needs of the community, business and tourists would be better served by making our waterfronts work on many levels. A waterfront that nourishes, invites, delights and sustains everyone can define Toronto as a place where people want to visit and stay. Outstanding public space can create a “wow” factor with greater long-term economic, social and environmental value than the “big thing” strategy.
We can’t afford to use our precious waterfront any other way.
Cynthia Wilkey Toronto
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