Old Age Security spending is set to rise by $28-billion in 2029.Chris Young/The Canadian Press
If I understand it
Re “A blockbuster not-yet-agreement with the devil in the politics” (Nov. 28): I believe this memorandum of understanding is pure politics and the controversy much ado about nothing.
I see a Prime Minister with a large target on his back, and this MOU is him saying, “You think that this pipeline isn’t being built because of me. Okay, then let’s get rid of the major roadblocks and stop complaining.”
This pipeline will likely not be built because of economics alone. Adding in resistance from British Columbia and First Nations, as well as the massive risk and uncertainty of building this kind of infrastructure with B.C.’s geography, should make it a non-starter.
What this MOU does get is a big hug from Danielle Smith and no credible criticism from Pierre Poilievre. The ill will and environmental concerns will likely dissipate over time when no credible project comes forward from the private sector.
Cagey, political calculus. Nation-building takes more forms than building actual projects.
Ian Watson Vancouver
Give and take
Re “The politics of Old Age Security reform are shifting” (Report on Business, Nov. 22): To my fellow boomers: Seniors with combined six-figure incomes should not be getting Old Age Security, and seniors with low five-figure income should be getting more. At the very least, OAS should start being clawed back at the same income level for family support payments to younger Canadians with children.
Boomers had it pretty good with low tuition rates and affordable housing, among many other things. Today’s younger generations, not so much.
Boomers should start acting like parents and pick up the bill, not wait for our children and grandchildren to do it.
Peter Manhire Smiths Falls, Ont.
It is proposed that seniors with household income exceeding $100,000 should begin forfeiting Old Age Security even though they worked a full career, paid taxes every year, planned retirement well and are married. The intent is to redistribute OAS savings to lower-income seniors and programs that support younger people.
This is not a zero-sum game; we don’t need to take a benefit away from those who have earned it simply to enhance other groups. If these other groups require further assistance, then maybe recommend the return of 7-per-cent GST, add an export tax to energy or just grow the economy.
I would not worry about Canada’s youth with regard to homeownership, because this is the group who will inherit the equity and assets that today’s OAS recipients have. They will receive this tax-free and without any effort whatsoever.
David Evans Kelowna, B.C.
Meaning…?
Re “Guess who’s at fault for all the world’s ills? It’s women again” (Opinion, Nov. 22): My experience in researching the ways in which people try to giving meaning to abstract notions such as “woke,” and using that to explain behaviour in politics and organizations, has convinced me that these meanings never resolve the problem inherent in language.
That is, all language is ambiguous, meaning depends on context and context itself is ambiguous. We use words to describe the world without ensuring that we and the people we are addressing share the same context for meaning.
What does “The Great Feminization” mean? What are examples of its existence and how ambiguous are these examples, such as empathy, masculine, safety and cohesion?
Their meaning rests in what people observe, what sense they make of it and how they label it. Actions that try to eliminate ambiguity rarely succeed.
I think this column does a good job trying to tie the terms to societal actions, but ambiguity remains.
Richard Heyman Professor emeritus, Werklund School of Education, University of Calgary
Literary legacy
Re “Thomas King’s storytelling now feels like a betrayal” (Nov. 27): As a man who has worked his entire life alongside Indigenous people, I don’t understand why Thomas King is being shunned.
Because he did not look hard enough for his absent father’s community? He was told by people he trusted that he was different, and that was explained by his birth father’s identity.
Mr. King has helped me and countless others understand Indigenous ways of thinking and approaches to life based on the life he led, one he believed was authentic. Does that not make him a valuable ally for all us on the path to truth and reconciliation?
Joel Peters Toronto
Re “Thomas King: All my life, I believed I was Indigenous. Now, I must reckon with the inconvenient truth” (Nov. 25): I want to express my support for Thomas King, whose work has shaped how many Canadians, myself included, understand this country.
For decades, his novels, stories and essays have illuminated Indigenous histories and cultures with clarity, humour and compassion. His words stand on their own merit. They always have.
Reducing a lifetime of contributions to a dispute over genealogy diminishes not only the man, but the importance of the stories he has given us.
Mr. King’s essay is honest, courageous and deeply human. Many of us believe him and, more importantly, continue to value the insight and generosity that characterize his writing.
This tempête médiatique will pass; his literary legacy will not. To borrow a line from The Dead Dog Café: “Stay calm, be brave, wait for the signs.”
Canada has benefited enormously from Mr. King’s voice, and many of us remain grateful for it.
Kent Lissack White Rock, B.C.
At attention
Re “Drive through” (Letters, Nov. 24): Manual shifting is outmoded, but I do enjoy maintaining skills that few drivers have even contemplated.
At age 14, 70 years ago, I was allowed to use the car on our steep driveway whenever I washed it. I became skilled at starting off uphill without using a handbrake, taking my foot off the brake and immediately co-ordinating the gas pedal and clutch. Later on, I figured out how to change gears without using the clutch, a tricky skill requiring precise timing.
My first car once lost the connection between the clutch and its pedal, leaving the clutch fully engaged. I got a push start, another lost skill, and proceeded to the dealer, avoiding having to stop along the way.
Certain life skills have no practical importance but can be a source of pride and fun. In addition, I do concentrate better when I drive with a manual shift.
Irwin Walker Hamilton
Check-in
Ten years ago, you published my essay (“Abstaining from battle, I decided to talk to my cancer cells instead” – Facts & Arguments, Nov. 17, 2015).
Twenty months earlier, I had been diagnosed with an aggressive prostate cancer and was told it would kill me within three years. I recounted the struggles I had in coping with the disease, and the role that exercise, mindfulness, a pilgrimage to Lourdes, France, and talking to my cancer cells played in helping me. I was started on an antiandrogen drug.
Your readers my be interested to know that now, 10 years later, I am still alive and reasonably well with a good quality of life, and continue conversing with my cancer cells. The cancer recurred in August, 2017, and I was placed on another antiandrogen. I have continued my physical and spiritual exercises on a daily basis.
I believe this multipronged approach has been crucial to my health and recovery.
François Mai 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