King Charles addresses a joint meeting of Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Tuesday.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Word for word
Re “Bravo, Charles! The real King schooled the faux one” (April 30): I offer King Charles my congratulations for the way in which he brought dignity, history and intelligence together, in compelling contrast with the madness that characterizes this U.S. administration.
The King’s speech was brilliant in its balanced, yet sensitive, way of underlining principles that should guide democracies, and in making a realistic case for a better way forward, given challenges which are legion.
I hope his words were not lost on U.S. lawmakers or voters.
J.C. Sulzenko Toronto
Something borrowed
Re “Should debt-ridden Canada really be borrowing $25-billion to invest more?” (Report on Business, April 30): For a more accurate comparison between Canada borrowing money to create a sovereign wealth fund and a homeowner buying stock rather than paying their mortgage, the homeowner would have to borrow money to buy stock in addition to not paying the mortgage.
The “spread” is not just between borrowing costs and returns, but between that plus the cost of servicing debt not paid. While Mark Carney likes to draw a comparison with Norway, that country’s fund was created with oil and gas revenue, not debt.
Ian Gadbois Ottawa
Past performance
Re “Head of agency behind failed federal ‘axe the fax’ medical prescription program dismissed from role” (April 30): Eleven years of operation and fewer than 5 per cent of prescriptions flow through this service.
My first question: Where has the board been for those 11 years? My second: How did a failing operation give its CEO $215,000 in variable pay last year? Wouldn’t it be nice to have his annual targets.
The board members should all be forced out. This has been a $300-million boondoggle.
To read that the now-former CEO has been on a “speaking tour” is maddening. What on Earth has he been talking about? Certainly not progress or accountability.
Stephen Kouri Toronto
Right place?
Re “High-speed rail is the right idea, done wrong” (April 25): As a retired transportation specialist, I have always been a passionate advocate of high-speed rail in the right place and under the right circumstances.
The right place would require a 200- to 500-kilometre corridor between high population centres. The obvious candidates in North America are Boston-New York-Washington and San Francisco-Los Angeles. Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City is marginal.
The right circumstances would require high-speed rail to be affordable with pent-up (and mode-stimulated) demand for improved intercity travel and an affluence to pay premium ticket prices. It seems inevitable that the estimated cost of $60-to $90-billion will escalate – just look at California’s experience. And it is highly unlikely that fare-box revenues will cover operating costs, requiring substantial ongoing subsidy.
High-speed rail would be a money pit in Canada. Other national projects should claim priority for government investment.
A more cost-effective case can be made for upgrading existing rail links in the Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City corridor.
Tony Eastham Nanoose Bay, B.C.
Alto has commissioned an “independent survey” of more than 3,000 respondents which found 74 per cent informed of the project, 69 per cent supportive and 75 per cent wanting to use the network.
These figures contrast sharply with a survey of 354 directly affected residents we conducted during the consultation period in Eastern Ontario. Only 2 per cent reported direct notification from Alto; awareness spread almost entirely through personal networks and social media; 87.8 per cent rated Alto’s information as inadequate; 85.7 per cent do not believe the process was designed to register community input.
A project of this scale, which would include expropriation on a scale not seen since the Mirabel and Pickering debacles of the 1970s and serve only a handful of stations, should be held to high consultation standards.
Lindsay Davidson Co-lead, Alto HSR Citizen Research Initiative; Frontenac County, Ont.
Protect it
Re “Why Canada’s supply management system is going to disappear” (April 27): Corporate food interests would prefer to sell U.S. taxpayer-subsidized milk to better their bottom lines. But in this volatile world, our so-called supply management system is actually sound food security policy.
The death of supply management would be the death of small family dairy farms in Canada. These farms are the social and economic foundation of small towns and rural communities in every province of our nation. Woe be the politician who delivers yet another blow to the Canadian heartlands.
As for the suggestion that we use U.S. softwood lumber tactics against them on behalf of the Canadian dairy industry, well, good luck, but don’t be surprised if the goal posts get moved again.
Now if only the Dairy Farmers of Canada could tell its story properly. It would enjoy strong public support, save money on lobbying and lower the price of milk in Canada.
Walter Sawadsky Vancouver
If this year has shown us anything, it’s that Canada cannot rely on others to safeguard its interests, especially when it comes to something as fundamental as our food supply.
Relying on USMCA trade remedies, or on the assumption that international institutions would recognize U.S. agricultural subsidies as unfair trading practices, is wishful thinking and risks Canada’s food security and sovereignty. This approach would not deliver the predictability or self-sufficiency Canada’s food supply requires, particularly in an increasingly uncertain global trade environment.
Supply management is a highly effective system that delivers what Canadians want: milk, eggs and poultry produced here at home, for Canadians first. It’s a strategic policy that maintains stability for consumers and farmers, and a domestic high-quality food supply we can rely on.
Disregarding Canada’s national interest is neither a remedy nor a strategy.
David Wiens President, Dairy Farmers of Canada; Grunthal, Man.
Tim Klompmaker Chair, Chicken Farmers of Canada; Asphodel-Norwood, Ont.
Roger Pelissero Chair, Egg Farmers of Canada; West Lincoln, Ont.
Darren Ference Chair, Turkey Farmers of Canada; Monitor, Alta.
Brian Bilkes Chair, Canadian Hatching Egg Producers; Chilliwack, B.C.
Failure to launch
Re “Staying in: When grown children decide to live with their parents” (Pursuits, April 25): I am of the age where most young adults used to be married before age 25. Setting up their own homes and asserting independence were the driving forces.
Today’s young adults appear less eager to start assuming responsibilities for their own lives, and instead look to their parents to keep providing life’s necessities. Gone is the moral of The Three Little Pigs, where Mother Pig announced it was time for the little pigs to find their own way in the world. Yes, the Big Bad Wolf may come a-calling, so be prepared.
The easy path of building a house of straw or sticks will not suffice. Work hard and prepare for life’s challenges.
Catharina Summers Kingston, 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