Police officers patrol on foot along Albert Street amidst convoy protests in Ottawa on Feb. 10, 2022.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
Unjustified?
Re “Invoking Emergencies Act wasn’t justified and infringed on Charter rights, Federal Court rules” (Jan. 24): Really? What is wrong with this country?
We watched as a collection of bullies occupied Ottawa, breaking parking and noise bylaws and generally being inconsiderate to the local inhabitants. The federal government is now being censured for its decision, which solved the problem with no blood spilled.
We as polite Canadians seem to be at the mercy of individuals who claim that their right to cause mayhem trumps our right to peace, order and good government.
Catherine Rublee Penticton, B.C.
What is the point of raising the justification issue on something two years old? It likely serves to nail another issue to the Liberal coffin.
If there were existing laws that could have been used, why weren’t they enacted during the standoff? The act was used not only because of what was going on in Ottawa: There were also border issues that affected the nation’s economy and cost millions of dollars every day.
Justin Trudeau said enough is enough, and I believe he was right.
Tony Burt Vancouver
From the day the Emergencies Act was invoked, many of us were of the view that it only portrayed the Liberal government’s weakness in dealing with the convoy protests, that it was not prepared to take on challenges which could come at any time.
It was like hiding behind the act to save face. The prudent way to deal with the crisis would have been to use only law enforcement, then go to the table to find an amicable way of ensuring the rules of government are applied at all times.
I find that this government has failed on many fronts, and this was a significant one where it used a measure of last resort when unwarranted.
This event could have been handled differently.
Anas Khan Beaumont, Alta.
By discouraging use of the Emergencies Act, the only outcome I can imagine is that the federal government will pass legislation that enables it to meet emergencies such as the convoy protest without resorting to the act.
If it does, we may lose more civil rights than we gain.
Nicholas Tracy Fredericton
Great. The barbarians at the gate won – pending an appeal, of course.
Patrick Stewart Toronto
Gone nuclear?
Re “Ontario is about to decide whether to overhaul Canada’s oldest nuclear power plant. Does it deserve a second life?” (Report on Business, Jan. 22): When faced with an aging car that has had many significant repairs, most sensible and precautionary owners wouldn’t think twice before disposing of it, rather than continuing to pour hard-earned dollars into it or, more significantly, risk driving it further and causing an accident.
Yet the Ontario government is seriously considering, at enormous potential expense, rebuilding 40-year-old nuclear reactors, despite the dangers presented by their location on Lake Ontario, non-insurable risks to health and environment, as well as potential economic and personal losses for millions of people should there be an accident.
Gracia Janes Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ont.
Re “Alberta’s Capital Power partners with Ontario Power Generation to build province’s first nuclear power reactor” (Report on Business, Jan. 16): Ontario Power Generation’s out-of-province nuclear ambitions raise some serious questions.
As a provincially owned corporation, OPG’s liabilities, especially around nuclear matters, are ultimately underwritten by Ontario taxpayers. Are OPG’s new activities exposing them to out-of-province economic and liability risks? Are these ventures really in the interests of Ontario residents?
It is also unclear to me whether anybody in Alberta has thought through where ultimate liability will lie for things such as waste management and decommissioning. Precedent in Canada has been for regulators to look to the host province as the ultimate guarantor.
Presumably this would be the case even if the proponent is a private company, as no non-state entity could provide the kinds of unconditional and unlimited guarantees that are required for nuclear projects.
Mark Winfield Co-chair, Sustainable Energy Initiative, faculty of environmental and urban change, York University Toronto
Re “Let’s reconsider” (Letters, Jan. 23): A letter-writer is quite right to indicate that wind and solar energy are much cheaper to generate than nuclear energy. But that is hardly the issue: Solar and wind are not available all of the time, so some sort of storage or backup supply is needed at extra cost.
The most promising solution to this would seem to be hydrogen production from surplus electricity, which could then be used to displace natural gas for electricity generation and other uses. The shift to electric vehicles also shows promise, since all of that battery capacity, hooked up to the grid, could be a great method of temporary electricity storage.
Brian Swinney Burlington, Ont.
Wish upon
Re “Ousted Gildan CEO has investments in Bay Street firm pushing to reinstate him to role” (Report on Business, Jan. 23): I am a retired investment banker, institutional investor and corporate director. I am stunned by the reaction of Gildan’s board.
A board has a fiduciary duty to the corporation. That said, if 35 per cent of shareholders are opposed to its actions, that fiduciary duty would surely include heeding wishes to call a special meeting.
There should be a vote on shareholder confidence in the board’s dramatic course of action, before change becomes very costly to unravel. I always felt it was incumbent on people in positions of responsibility to “do the right thing.”
Allegations that investors and the former CEO have some overlapping interests seem like a smokescreen. In the course of business relationships, individuals often do business with people who do business with them.
Those relationships should have no bearing on the right of shareholders to exercise the only significant power left to them: the election of directors.
John Harris Toronto
Finally
Re “James Forcillo tells Sammy Yatim coroner’s inquest that having a taser would have ‘changed everything’ ” (Jan. 23): Coroner’s counsel said “the goal is to explore police decision-making skills and best practices for responses to people in crisis to make recommendations that could prevent future such deaths.” This more than 10 years later?
It would certainly be disheartening to count the number of both completed and scheduled inquests involving “people in crisis,” whose deaths weren’t prevented, since Sammy Yatim was killed in 2013.
Mike Matthews London, Ont.
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