Author Barry Rueger's 140-year-old farmhouse at Western Head, just outside Liverpool, NS.Sara Jewell/Supplied
Judge of history
Re “Welcome to the slavery memorial. Enjoy the beautiful view” (Opinion, June 21): It is difficult for me to support the contention that ”in Canada, we are learning the value of telling history accurately.” Rewriting the past feels like a worthless exercise if it is reduced to identifying a person or group as either virtuous or evil.
With a few notable exceptions, few historical groups or figures are perfect; they are the product of their times, they are human. A better history would acknowledge the totality of human behaviour and how it is a product of a particular set of historical circumstances.
No one benefits from placing individuals or groups on tall pedestals – or tearing them down. Let us strive to write nuanced histories that recognize a full range of individual motivations.
We may fool ourselves into believing that we can transcend our historical circumstances, but historians will likely make a different judgement in 100 years. Let us hope it is measured.
Ted Wiggans Harvey Station, N.B.
Consent needed
Re “Bill C-5 reveals fault lines between Ottawa and Indigenous peoples over consultation, consent” (June 25): As a former World Bank special representative to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, I was for four years privileged to have represented the bank on what was then the UN Human Rights Commission.
In doing so, I had numerous occasions to consider whether client governments and the bank were respecting the terms of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, to which Canada is a signatory. Central to the declaration is the concept of “free, prior and informed consent.”
On several occasions, we took issue with governments applying a process of “consultation” with Indigenous communities, rather than seeking “informed consent” following consultation. I trust that in its application of Bill C-5, this federal government and its provincial counterparts will respect and adhere to the declaration’s fundamental consent principle.
Joseph Ingram Fellow, Canadian Global Affairs Institute; Città della Pieve, Italy
Walls up
Re “New law will protect supply management from trade negotiations” (June 21): I am dismayed that parliamentarians seem so cowed by the dairy lobby, they would pass legislation of benefit to a (relatively) few agribusinesses and likely detrimental to most Canadians. That it was a Bloc Québécois-sponsored bill doesn’t surprise me: Quebec is the major beneficiary and it is Quebec votes politicians are courting here.
Along with the digital services tax, it also doesn’t seem like a good tactic for trade negotiations to exacerbate two known U.S. grievances and handicap our position.
If there is a trade deal and supply management remains, I believe other industries will be penalized. If supply management is removed, I believe billions of dollars will be churned out by the government to compensate the dairy industry for losses. If there is no trade deal, we all lose.
In any outcome, the cost to most Canadians will likely be higher because of this ill-advised and ill-timed legislation.
John Harris Toronto
Final exam
Re “In the AI revolution, universities are up against the wall” (Opinion, June 21): This aptly captures the existential worry in education today, especially as artificial intelligence makes a mockery of essays, grading and grades.
Yet we remain a credentialist society. Rigorous assessment of genuine hard work still shapes students’ futures and their sense of self-worth.
There are enduring bot-proof tools: close reading, analysis and guided debate of complex ideas with no pat answers. This is the essence of a quality liberal arts education, still capable of sparking joy.
Perhaps we should return to a simpler model: one final in-person exam of short and long essays (chalk and slate optional) worth 90 per cent of a grade. The pressure was real; so was the learning.
The long-form essay done at home is dead. Long live the exam.
Alex MacKenzie Peterborough, Ont.
Tax matters
Re “No more half measures: to get out of our growth rut, Canada needs radical tax reform” (Opinion, June 21): It is recommended to replace corporate income tax in Canada with a cash-flow corporate tax or closely related alternatives.
These proposals have been well researched and refined carefully over the years. They have been put forward by the top economists working in this area in Canada.
In my view, there is no question there would be major economic benefits from pursuing tax reform in this direction. Serious attention to the need for tax reform in Canada is long overdue.
Jim Davies Professor emeritus, department of economics, Western University; London, Ont.
Change the capital gains tax. Recently we saw it bounce between 50 per cent and 66 per cent on governmental edicts that took effect quickly.
From what I read, capital gains taxes earn the government little, even before the damage they do to investments, and not to mention the absurdity of many Canadians treating their principal homes not as places to live, but as investments.
Let’s join Singapore and Belgium as places with tax-free capital gains. They seem to be doing all right.
James Palmer Ottawa
Home is…
Re “I want a home, not an investment” (Opinion, June 21): My husband and I bought our first home in 1964, when we had four children.
We had a pretty good idea what we were looking for, after having lived in rented quarters from the start of our marriage. We found our home in Aurora, Ont., a stately old residence a little away from the road and surrounded by old trees.
As we looked at it with the eyes of parents, we saw all the possibilities: reading in the crook of a tree, discovering things in the adjacent barn, chickens, a vegetable garden, etc. We lived in it for many years until my husband’s work took him to another province.
We are both 90 years old now. We often look back on those years with great fondness, and so do our eldest children. What we dreamed of and found proved to be right: a place for a family, not an investment.
Johanna Peetoom Calgary
Shouldn’t we be hearing about the value of a home from someone who will never own one?
The ability to choose where and how we live is no longer the reality for many in this country. Talk to a renter about what home looks and feels like in Canada.
Ask them what their numbers are and how they imagine their future. Ask them how they welcome family when they haven’t got a room to spare.
While we’re at it, ask them what’s in their shopping basket at the grocery store.
Jessica Bell Vancouver
..................................................................................................................................
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