CBSA officers say they have noticed some refugee claimants who have crossed into Canada irregularly are now acting as "anchor relatives" for family members, allowing their immediate and extended family members to cross at an official border entry and not be considered irregular migrants. RCMP officers patrol the border from Champlain, N.Y., into Canada, on May 9, 2018.Ryan Remiorz/The Canadian Press
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
..................................................................................................................................
Controlling the border
Re Asylum-Seeker Surge At Quebec Border Chokes Refugee System (Sept. 12): Allowing this charade at our borders demeans the cause of migrants who are fleeing from horrific circumstances. If the government doesn’t clean up this mess with economic migrants, attitudes will harden toward all migrants. For a country built on immigration, that would be a tragedy. I want my compassion and dollars to support real refugees.
Jennifer Campbell, Edmonton
.........................................................
For the cause and quite probably the consequences of a Liberal government lost in an uncontrolled “open door” fantasy and ineptitude, read Margaret Wente’s column, Why Are The Swedes So Disgruntled? (Sept. 11) and Moving In, Moving Right in the Economist’s European edition for a picture of (to borrow from H.G. Wells) the shape of things to come.
The solution is easy: Cut back on immigration to assuage the average Canadian’s sense of being culturally overwhelmed and deal effectively with the immigrants we now have on our national plate with adequate federal funding. In short: Provide a sense that we control immigration and not that immigration controls us.
W. E. Hildreth, Toronto
.........................................................
It doesn’t surprise me that a high percentage of so-called “asylum seekers” from the United States are actually “economic migrants” and are being rejected. They should be sent back immediately so Canadian taxpayers don’t have to feed, clothe and shelter them for 19 months until their cases can be heard.
I am one Canadian who would like to see Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lower the boom, eliminate the Immigration and Refugee Board and its numerous politically appointed hacks, and appoint independent persons (professionally trained immigration officers and judges) who have the knowledge and background to make quality decisions quickly to eliminate the long wait time for a hearing and the immense cost to Canadian taxpayers of that delay.
Both Ontario and Quebec are fed up with the lack of economic and political support from the federal government, since they do not wish to bear the cost of dealing with these border-crossers, but in the end, it’s all Canadian taxpayers who pay the price. Taxpayer money spent on this means those funds are not available for other priorities, including medical care and education. This just doesn’t sit well with me. Mr. Trudeau should not look for my vote in the next election.
Andy Buchan, Burnaby, B.C.
Charter use/abuse
As part of the team in the Federal Provincial Relations Office in 1978, I was a participant in the negotiations that resulted in the Constitution Act of 1982. The “notwithstanding clause” was insisted upon by then-premier Sterling Lyon of Manitoba to enable provincial legislatures to challenge the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, should issues be at odds with provincial legislative initiatives. Supported by both premiers Peter Lougheed and Allan Blakeney, this clause was an essential element in securing the support of all premiers for approval of the Constitution.
The fact that Ontario Premier Ford wants to use it now is perfectly legitimate and within the province’s constitutional rights.
Brian Marley-Clarke, director, Federal Provincial Relations, Privy Council Office (ret’d); Calgary
.........................................................
If any majority government can invoke Section 33 to protect unconstitutional legislation – of any type, on any matter – of what value is Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms between elections?
Jean-Pierre Boutros, Toronto
.........................................................
I am dismayed, nay, horrified, by the lack of understanding of our system of government shown by our elected representatives and many of our citizens.
In particular, I find the comments about the difference between elected legislators and appointed members of the judiciary astoundingly ignorant.
If Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s interpretation is correct, we don’t need the notwithstanding clause at all. The Charter could simply read “You have a right to free speech (freedom of religion, etc.) if the government you elected wants you to.” Surely those arguing for Mr. Ford’s interpretation would not expect the Legislature to overturn convictions handed down by elected judges. Perhaps our education system is woefully wanting in its teaching of civics.
Gail Morrison, Peterborough, Ont.
.........................................................
Can we please remember two things? First, the courts are a part of democracy. Second, Doug Ford does not speak for the people. Only 58 per cent of eligible Ontarians voted in the last provincial election, and only 40 per cent of those selected a PC candidate. So fewer than a quarter of voters put an X next to a PC candidate.
Brett Hodnett, Gatineau, Que.
.........................................................
Our judiciary exists to prevent legislative overreach that tramples on individual rights, often those of minorities. Ontario Justice Edward Belobaba did his job. He found that the bill to cut the size of Toronto’s council violated the Charter rights of Toronto voters and candidates. If his findings are incorrect, there are at least two further levels of appeal.
Doug Ford’s knee-jerk reaction to an unfavourable ruling by the courts demonstrates quite clearly that he thinks he, and his government, are above the law. And it is quite scary to see how many people agree with him.
Sam Perlmutter, Halifax
.........................................................
Re By Embracing the Premier, Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives Signed Up For Chaos (Sept. 12): Adam Radwanski is right, Ontario PCs must own the chaos that they signed up for. Abraham Lincoln also had it right when he said: “Elections belong to the people. It’s their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds then they will just have to sit on their blisters.”
Martin Birt, Uxbridge, Ont.
Counting on the 25th
Re Constant Cries About Trump’s Instability Simply Aren’t Enough (Sept. 12): Lawrence Martin writes that “any notion that the 25th Amendment will be used against Mr. Trump is a pipe dream,” then cites the cases of Ronald Reagan (Alzheimer’s) and Woodrow Wilson, who was incapacitated by a stroke and remained president.
Hardly surprising in Mr. Wilson’s case, since the 25th Amendment was enacted by Congress in 1965 and finally ratified by the states in 1967. Mr. Wilson’s stroke occurred in 1919.
Renton Stevenson, Toronto
NAFTA? It’s hair razing
U.S. Trade lawyer Daniel Ujczo advises Canadian negotiators to accept the “haircut” that their American counterparts intend to impose in the new NAFTA, and tells us that “the best you can hope for when you get a haircut is that it looks stylish” (Canada, U.S. Set To Resume NAFTA Talks Despite Impasse Over Dispute Resolution – Sept. 11).
Ordinarily, I would prefer Sweeney Todd over Donald Trump as my barber. But, if the President would agree to leave our exports alone, all Canadians should offer to copy his hairstyle as a tribute to his might and magnificence.
Adil A. Sayeed, Toronto