GETTY IMAGES
Back to the future
Re “The broken Britain of today can be the Canada of tomorrow” (Report on Business, June 27): Having lived in Britain during the Thatcher era, and now observing the “Make America Great Again” movement, I am struck by the common fundamental error in attempting to recreate past days of glory.
Ironically, the reason why both countries achieved hegemonic status in the past was because they looked to and prepared for their future. Progressive vision, not reverence of an outdated past, brought them greatness.
Nigel Martin Lac-Brome, Que.
General history
Re “The King-Byng affair was a century ago. What have we learned?” (Opinion, June 27): The prime minister and governor-general were already at odds in the summer of 1923, three years before this political crisis.
With thousands of coal miners and steelworkers on strike in Nova Scotia and hundreds of Canadian soldiers on hand to police the situation, William Lyon Mackenzie King decided to cancel his trip to the province to mark the 150th anniversary of the arrival of the immigrant ship Hector. Lord Byng did attend and, against King’s advice, met in his private railway car with arrested union leaders and discuss terms of settlement.
King was concerned that Byng was improperly meddling in public affairs and, incidentally, casting doubt on King’s standing as the resident expert in industrial relations. The potential deal was scuttled by the international union, but this episode showed King that Byng was more than capable of overstepping the governor-general’s authority and embarrassing him in ways he considered unconstitutional.
David Frank Fredericton
While we can hope our current vice-regal will not have to confront a constitutional crisis like the King-Byng affair, Canadians can take comfort that, if called upon, Louise Arbour is eminently qualified and particularly well-suited to make sound, principled and well-reasoned decisions in exercising her discretionary powers when fulfilling her constitutional duties.
As someone who had the good fortune to serve Ms. Arbour as a law clerk when she was a justice of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, I can think of very few Canadians, if any, who would bring her knowledge, experience and impeccable judgment to the weighty and thorny constitutional questions of the type Lord Byng addressed a century ago.
Aly Alibhai Toronto
Promised land
Re “The empty promise of $10 a day child care” (The Sunday Editorial, June 28): If growing waitlists are a sign that many more families want access to affordable child care, why should the solution be to throttle this demand rather than try much more boldly to meet it?
Families who earn more already pay more through our progressive tax system. Why check their pay stubs at the preschool door? That’s not how we treat public education, and early learning should be no different.
To only mention child care policy experiences in Canada and Australia ignores lessons from jurisdictions that have successfully implemented low-cost universal systems. These countries consistently built them up over time, rather than flip-flopping from system building back to cheque-in-the-mail policies.
What the child care sector needs is stability, ambition and collaborative planning until we have a system where high-quality early learning and care is available to every child as a matter of right.
Carolyn Ferns Public policy co-ordinator, Ontario Coalition For Better Child Care; Toronto
Canada’s child care plan is not an “empty promise,” as many parents now using affordable care can attest. If would be more correct to say it is a partially completed promise, as was intended at the five-year mark.
Despite substantial public spending, more ongoing federal funding is needed to achieve the ultimate goal of universal affordable child care. Educators should be paid better wages, vulnerable families should benefit, service providers shouldn’t have to struggle with shortfalls and more not-for-profit spaces should be developed – all provincial responsibilities.
Provincial vouchers, federal refundable tax credits, income-testing, more for-profit care: The alternative policies you offer to address these complex issues have either been tried before or seem unlikely to solve the issues.
Governments Canada-wide need a comprehensive long-term plan to reinforce successes and address gaps. Continue building the envisioned universal child care system rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Martha Friendly Childcare Resource and Research Unit, Toronto
Pain in the…
Re “Canada’s public dental-care plan is rotten at the roots” (Opinion, June 27): With my modest income, I should qualify for full unreduced benefits under the Canadian Dental Care Plan. However, as a retired federal government employee, I am covered by Treasury Board’s Pensioners’ Dental Services Plan.
My $350 annual PDSP premium would pay for less than half of a typical set of full dentures. The premium-free CDCP would pay the full cost.
So quit the PDSP and join the CDCP? Sorry, I am ineligible because I have access to an employer-sponsored dental insurance plan.
If I want dental insurance, I am forced to pay into a more expensive, decidedly mediocre plan. Tommy Douglas would not approve.
Donald Rollins Vernon, B.C.
We are among the many Canadians bumped from the Canadian Dental Care Plan. I cannot get information about whether we may reapply.
This year I needed a crown, a service apparently covered under the plan. The application for coverage was summarily rejected with no reason given (but likely because of a tiny one-time blip in income). The dentist was told to resubmit, but it was rejected again.
I attempted to ascertain the reason, as did the dentist, but it seems they are not required to give one. The dentist tells me this happens all the time.
We cheered when the CDCP came into effect, but now it seems like another unaccountable government program.
Allison Howard Penticton, B.C.
Sorry, sorry
Re “Canadians say ‘sorry.’ Then what happens?” (Opinion, June 27): In 10 years of volunteer job mentoring with immigrants, focus on the workplace frequently shades into discussions about Canadian cultural norms.
We advise newcomers that Canadians usually require explicit invitations to provide criticism. Most offer polite encouragement to the question “do I have a good resume?” Instead, encourage specific suggestions by asking “what can I add to my resume to make me a stronger candidate for this job?”
“Sorry” is more than just an apology for a ”minor social transgression,” but rather a way to acknowledge others in a culture awkwardly hesitant to engage strangers. “Sorry” is our equivalent to the formal “bonjour, monsieur” upon entry to a French shop, or the friendly “how are ya” of our ebullient neighbours to the south.
Two newcomers reaching for the same cookie in our workshops and simultaneously saying “sorry” gives me Canadian-modest pride in the daily renewal of our reticent Canadian-ness.
Chester Fedoruk 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
Editor’s note: Due to an editing error, the name of Louise Arbour was initially misspelled. It has been updated.