The residence at 24 Sussex Drive is seen on the banks of the Ottawa River in October, 2015.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
The other housing crisis
Re “The state of 24 Sussex is an insult to Canada” (Opinion, Dec. 29): The old adage about looking after your family and home first comes to mind, before funnelling billions of taxpayer funds for overseas adventures and political UN optics that mean zero to Canadians.
J. Stathos Toronto
I couldn’t agree more with Chris Westdal on this issue, and I encouraged the PMO under Justin Trudeau to build a modest “green” home with up-to-date, environmentally sustainable materials and state-of-the-art technology. This should be a showcase of responsible development and a chance for Canadian companies to demonstrate their advanced products. It doesn’t have to be palatial, but rather efficient and sustainable. I will send a similar message to Prime Minister Mark Carney.
Carol Gottlob Burlington, Ont.
Canada is a great country – one that I am proud of. The Prime Minister’s residence is an important symbol and, in this, is letting us all down – badly. Reconstruction of the existing historic structure is well within our ability and our means. We can, and should, do better.
David Bergen St. Catharines, Ont.
I completely agree that Canada should have a worthy official residence for its prime minister as long as it is not the golden bordello the White House has become.
I’m baffled that Canadians begrudge our Prime Minister a decent home within which to entertain foreign guests while Americans accept Donald Trump’s desecration of a national treasure and fund the expense of his weekly trips to his other gilded palace, Mar-a-Lago.
There is a dramatic contrast in the values of the two leaders – one using his position to enhance his image, support a luxurious lifestyle and build personal wealth, and one working hard for his country and its people.
We Canadians are indeed fortunate to have the latter.
John Rankin Burlington, Ont.
In the German language, “Rathaus” denotes town hall. In the English language in Canada, “rathouse” is the descriptive term for the now abandoned prime minister’s residence.
Ray Murphy Ottawa
Pick a side
Re “Zelensky to meet with Trump on Sunday” (Dec. 27): For the U.S. to be working toward a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine is laudable.
But there’s something wrong when America can be perceived as a neutral interlocutor between a ruthless autocratic aggressor and its peaceful democratic victim. Nothing against diplomacy, but one wonders if the war would have ended sooner – as well as more favourably for our natural ally – if Donald Trump had intervened earlier with unrestrained military backing for Ukraine.
The U.S. should never have become effectively neutral in this fundamental struggle between good and evil.
Brian Green Thunder Bay
City money
Re “Development charges rest on a shaky base” (Editorial, Dec. 29): In considering city revenue sources, perhaps the base sources have become non-functioning over time.
At Confederation, municipalities were granted property-tax rights. In 1867, the value of your property was proportional to your ability to pay your share of the costs of local government. These days, when property values change based on which area is popular, the value of your land may have little to do with your liquid wealth or disposable income.
The result is cities turning to development charges to supplement property taxes. Perhaps a rethink, with city funds being derived from income taxes, would result in a fairer outcome.
Charles MacDonald Stittsville, Ont.
Paying our way
Re “How to ensure universal health care stays that way” (Report on Business, Dec. 27): It is claimed that boomers will need to pay more for health care as they age. Yes, we will use more health services at some point, but for more than 45 years many of us have used very little in the way of health services while paying for others.
The system remains broken, and Canadians seem intent on simply paying more and more into it with the same failed results. Boomers didn’t create the huge debt our country holds but certainly have paid taxes supporting government programs, many of which have been wasteful.
Pointing fingers at certain groups and suggesting they are the problem isn’t a solution.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
The idea of money
Re “Canada shouldn’t go cashless” (Dec. 20): Society has already faced and accepted the risks to resiliency, cybersecurity and an intangible budget because of the banking system’s digitization.
Do you know your bank account balance without looking at your phone? The cashless economy is inevitable because the world has been trained to live with money as an abstract concept.
Have mercy on our electrical grid.
Deitra Sawh Toronto
Let’s talk about who the most zealous lobbyists are for a cashless society. They sure aren’t consumers or consumer organizations. The biggest beneficiaries will be the banks, by ridding themselves of the cost of handling paper money.
Instead, they will download more cashless transaction costs onto consumers. Credit-card companies will make even more money from the fees they charge consumers and retailers.
Going (somewhat) paperless has upsides, but this reminds me of how the Canada Revenue Agency and banks deliver, respectively, tax return forms and digital T4s. They save pennies per person, while individuals spend hundreds of dollars on printers just to print out a half-dozen forms and T4s a year. It’s wrong.
Carroll McCormick Montreal
Tomato, tomahto
Re “In defence of Canadian spelling” (Editorial, Dec. 26): I write using the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (I’ve enjoyed the Gage Canadian Dictionary, too).
Prime Minister Mark Carney does appear to be moving away from our British/American hybridized English to British Oxford standard. I’m okay with this – British spelling is evocative and non-expedient, and why rush the delight of spelling and writing?
That said, it would be quirky to e-mail my mechanic asking him to check a “tyre.” I live in Quebec, mind you, where language debate is nothing “pneu.”
Mel Simoneau Gatineau
Older too
Re “I just turned 64, and I can’t stop thinking about this Beatles song” (Opinion, Dec. 29): Jonathan Zimmerman’s well-researched analysis of Paul McCartney’s When I’m Sixty-Four describes how the lyrics envisioned a life and family he didn’t have. This made me realize that the Beatle with the most stable upbringing, the only one who had two parents who never left him, was also the only one who ended up “doing the garden, digging the weeds.” Yes, George Harrison was a dedicated gardener in his later years, but alas, never made it to 64.
David Bryce Ottawa
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