Supreme challenge
Re Top Court Hurts Economy By Fostering Uncertainty (Report on Business, Feb. 20): Brian Lee Crowley should put responsibility for creating economic certainty squarely where it belongs: with the elected government.
It can do this, in part, by introducing thoughtful, principled, well-drafted legislation, not the plethora of bills Canadians witness which can seem ideologically motivated or a response to a crisis du jour in the mind of the government. A mishmash of bills with respect to crime and punishment is an example of this. When everything is a crisis, real or imagined, fatigue sets in which can undermine the management of legitimately critical issues.
Another example is using omnibus budget bills rather than legislation which clearly sets out the government's financial direction – devoid of unrelated matters. Or using omnibus budget bills to "backdoor" changes to laws without the opportunity for thoughtful debate. Surely "boutique" tax bills introduced independently of an overarching financial vision can only add to economic uncertainty.
Of course the irony is that the majority of the members of the Supreme Court were put there by the current government, often summarily.
It seems that regardless of the background and personal values of these individuals, once on the bench and tasked with considering complex legal and societal issues, there is a high degree of consistency in their decision-making when filling the vacuum created by politicians.
Irene Robertson, Victoria
.........
Gordon Gibson attacks the Supreme Court of Canada as "the greatest threat to our democracy" and proposes that Parliament start "routinely" invoking its constitutional right to overrule the court's decisions (Who Is Judging The Judges? – Feb. 19).
He might ask why Parliament has never done so. The answer is simple: because Canadian voters have far too much respect for the court's legitimate authority to tolerate such crass politics. No democracy can endure long without precisely such widespread respect for the rule of law.
Justin A. Campbell, Ottawa
.........
Thanks to Gordon Gibson for so cogently describing the threat to Canadian democracy posed by unelected, activist Supreme Court judges – as opposed to elected parliamentarians – going beyond their job of interpreting the law and effectively making law, meddling in areas of public policy in which they have no expertise or mandate, such as prostitution.
Why bother with elections?
James Housley, Fonthill, Ont.
.........
No to money talk
It is ridiculous to think a six-year-old needs to know what their parents' salary is or how it compares with their peers (Parenting – Life & Arts, Feb. 20). Children of that age should be taught to respect their classmates, take instruction from their teachers and learn to feel positive about themselves.
We are inundated by an endless supply of parenting self-help books on every conceivable topic by so-called experts when the only thing parents should be doing is exercising some common sense. Revisit the money talk issue in five or six years when it will be more meaningful and productive.
Leonard Naymark, Toronto
.........
Death wishes
Re Death: A Nine-Point Plan For Legislators (Feb. 20): Our parliamentarians should not be focusing only on legislating the role of physicians in helping consenting patients end their lives. More importantly, they also must ensure that Canadians have the right – and access – to the best possible palliative care, something too many throughout our nation do not have.
It is the fear of inadequate help being available to provide comfort and relief from physical and emotional pain that drives most facing their final journey to seek alternative ways to end their lives.
To ensure the right to die with dignity, we need legislation that enshrines the direction given by the Supreme Court.
But if the outcome of this exercise is to reflect an understanding of the real problem facing Canadians, the law that is crafted will recognize that access to optimal end-of-life care is the true priority.
For most people, it will obviate the need to seek a medically-assisted death. Calvin Gutkin, MD, Mississauga
.........
And SNC's board?
I have been following your continuing and detailed coverage of the criminal investigation of the operations of SNC-Lavalin (SNC-Lavalin Charged With Fraud, Bribery After Settlement Talks Fail – Feb. 20). Your analysis has focused on several so-called "rogue" employees of the firm. What about the board members?
It seems to me there are only three possible ways to characterize the work of the board at the time when the alleged offences occurred: They were either complicit in the alleged conduct, they knowingly turned a blind eye to the conduct of employees, or they were incompetent in applying basic corporate governance.
The payment of agent's fees for securing offshore contracts is not rocket science. Given the amounts involved, the board should've raised questions, either about the specific contractual arrangements, or if these were not apparent, the financing of the projects involved.
I predict a shareholders' class-action lawsuit.
Peter Vivian, North Saanich, B.C.
.........
C-51's popularity
Your editorial expressing reservations about the Angus Reid poll on Bill C-51 (Questions, Questions – Feb. 20) is welcome after earlier reports that "There's rarely been a bill before Parliament that was more popular" (Bill C-51 Is A National Blockbuster – Feb. 19).
As a demographer with many years experience with statistical surveys, I think skepticism is in order, for reasons of methodology as well as content. It is possible that 82 per cent of Canadians "in every province, every age group, and across party lines" are in favour of the bill. But there are several reasons to suspend judgment. The respondents are not in fact "a randomly selected sample of 1,509 Canadians." They are a random sample of persons who have joined an Angus Reid panel, a panel which itself is not a random sample of Canadian adults.
Angus Reid polls are conducted online, only persons with regular access to the Internet can join the panel. This means that one out of five adults is automatically excluded. Panel members are self-selected; it is axiomatic that self-selected samples tend to be biased.
Taken together, these factors suggest a sample that underrepresents young adults, busy people, and the poor. We would do well to wait and see what Canadians really think of Bill C-51.
Thomas K. Burch, Victoria
.........
So sad. Um, right
Re Jays Get Chilly Reception As Spring Training Begins (Sports, Feb. 20): So the early Blue Jays training camp participants faced a rude awakening in the form of un-Floridalike 7 C temperatures and "a stiff unforgiving breeze."
Given the current winter in much of Canada, our sympathies are muted …
Len Owen, Sackville, N.B.