Canada's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stand next to each other before delivering the fall economic statement in Ottawa, on Nov. 21.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters
Canadian position
Re “U.S. warns Israel losing support as Canada backs call for ceasefire in UN vote” (Dec. 13): Canada’s vote today to approve the United Nations motion for a ceasefire is utterly disappointing and highly concerning to me.
Yes, Canada wrote a joint statement with Australia and New Zealand discussing concerns and suggestions for future negotiations; however these were not included in the actual motion. And how does Canada have the gall to advise Israel about how to conduct its affairs?
Why did Canada feel the need to steer away from long-standing, resolute support for Israel, especially as most of our allies either abstained or opposed the motion? Perhaps Justin Trudeau is concerned about appeasing some of his constituency.
Has the idea of international statesmanship denigrated into parochial politics?
Rhoda Arnold Thornhill, Ont.
Money talks
Re “When it comes to international students, ‘show me the money’ is only half a policy” (Editorial, Dec. 12): Changing immigration rules for international students is not half a policy – I find it to be far less than that.
Postsecondary institutions across Canada increasingly rely on international student tuition revenues to cover decreasing base operating grants from provincial governments. Insisting that international students must also work on campus would exacerbate the financial side of this problem for institutions. It would not be a pragmatic solution at all.
Those who blame international students for Canada’s housing crisis, which has been growing for decades, would be shockingly misguided. One real solution to the so-called international student problem lies in addressing funding for our postsecondary institutions.
As with many of Canada’s most troublesome public-policy issues, including housing, critical attention should be directed at the provinces to solve this.
Shaun Fluker Associate professor of law, University of Calgary
International students are major assets to Canada.
However, as pointed out in a discussion paper by senators, Canada needs to better manage its international student program to address abuse. The federal government’s recent changes follow our recommendation to crack down on fly-by-night institutions, which are a major source of fraud.
Other changes, such as an increase in the dollar amount required to live in Canada, whilst addressing the affordability issue, would undoubtedly lower the number of students coming to Canada. This in turn would have a devastating effect on our postsecondary institutions, which rely heavily on foreign student fees to maintain their financial bases due to stagnant funding from the provinces.
A national dialogue is urgently needed to ensure that Canada’s postsecondary education sector can financially sustain itself and provide quality education to domestic and international students.
Else the tail will wag the dog.
Ratna Omidvar, Independent senator Toronto
Up the chain
Re “A harsh truth: Real fixes to Canada’s economy are difficult and politically unpopular” (Report on Business, Dec. 13): Instead of the constant refrain that workers in Canada are less productive than those elsewhere, I believe it would be more accurate to say it is Canadian business owners and leaders who are less productive than those elsewhere.
Craig Sims Kingston
It’s the economy
Re “For all its faults, the federal government isn’t that bad at managing the economy” (Report on Business, Dec. 9): Fortunately I am neither an economist nor a politician, so I am unencumbered by binary choices or absolute constraints. With the country’s future at stake, there should be options other than austerity or increased deficits; fiscal prudence or infrastructure maintenance.
Nobody believes our taxes are low, but they could be higher. We could also reallocate the tax burden more fairly, as suggested by contributor Paul Kershaw (“Attention older, affluent homeowners: Let’s put our housing wealth to work” – Report on Business, Dec. 9) while referencing older homeowners’ wealth: “Government policy about spending and revenue collection must adapt to that reality.”
Without such (admittedly tough) policy realignments, we may yet find ourselves with an extremist political party ready to find scapegoats for our growing discontent.
Len Ashby Toronto
Do I read this right? Does columnist Paul Kershaw think that a senior woman, with an income of $22,000 and an original kitchen in her 60-year-old home, should be taxed on her home’s inflated and speculative equity? Is this perfectly justified because of short-sighted governments and an insatiable consumerist culture?
I bet that such a senior, whom twenty- and thirtysomethings seem to envy, used to wash out her milk bags, darn her socks and underwear, make quilts out of old shirts, got by on one car and took no elaborate vacations until she paid off her mortgage. Just because a new generation can’t afford everything media tells them they should want, it should not mean that they scheme ways to dig personal wealth out from under the beds of their frugal and self-restrained grandparents.
The shame.
J. E. Pauling Ottawa
Drink up
Re “Ottawa announces details of expanded dental care program for uninsured Canadians” (Dec. 12): The federal government’s decision to pay for dental treatment will help many people. But prevention is always better than treatment, and much less costly. Yet most Canadians do not have fluoridated water.
MPs and senators ought to support dental-decay prevention by funding infrastructure grants for fluoridation capital equipment. Such grants would bring water fluoridation to many communities and can reduce dental decay by approximately 25 per cent.
Fluoridation has more than 75 years of efficacy and safety evidence and is enjoyed by more than 90 per cent of cities with a National Hockey League team.
It feels past time for all Canadians to benefit from this 20th-century health measure.
Juliet Guichon, Ian Mitchell and James Dickinson Faculty members, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary
Feel it all
Re “To raise empathetic children, parents should lead by example” (Dec. 8): It is possible to be too empathetic.
In an interview, forensic psychologist Kerry Daynes has said that “often working on cases involving horrendous acts, I often find myself flooded with empathy. If I allowed it to, it would lead at best to some bad practice and decisions on my part, and at worst complete incapacitation.”
Elsewhere, a Chinese study published in Brain, Behavior, and Immunity analyzed the vicarious traumatization caused by an excess of empathetic engagement by caretakers (general public, members and medical staff) aiding in COVID-19 control.
Moses Shuldiner 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