Job seekers wait in line for a resume review at a job fair in Toronto on Tuesday April 28 2015.Chris Young/The Globe and Mail
Ads in abundance
Re Readers Have Declared War On Publishers (July 3):
Carl Mortished's article is interesting, but it omits a key reason (in addition to Adblock) that viewership of online and television ads is declining.
It's not the quality of the ads that's so annoying, but the abundance. Many people accept that ad revenue pays the bills, but not when frequency and length destroy the experience.
I timed the ads on Bravo two nights ago: four minutes of ad, five minutes of program followed by four minutes of ads. Being yanked over and over from an interesting discussion or well-crafted story is simply unpalatable. Like many before, I've decided to give up TV altogether.
Marillene Allen, Toronto
A pair of myths
Livio Di Matteo peddles two myths in Are Public-Sector Jobs Crowding Out The Private? (June 25)
First, he uses the experience of 1990s Canada to support the myth of expansionary austerity. Yes, severe government cutbacks coincided with economic growth, but only because they happened when our top export market, the United States, was booming. As Europe is showing, austerity is a job-killer, not a job-creator, in a depressed economy.
Second, the myth that public-sector jobs crowd out private-sector jobs rests on dubious statistical reasoning: Leaving out the self-employed and using percentage changes to heighten the increase in public-sector jobs (which are only about 20 per cent of all jobs). Public-sector employment has grown by about 600,000 jobs since 2003, while private-sector employment has increased by 1.5 million jobs. Hardly crowding out.
Jim Conley, department of sociology, Trent University, Peterborough, Ont.
Canada-China FIPA
Gus Van Harten asserts (The FIPA With China Puts Us In A Box On Climate Change – June 30) that our recently signed Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement with China will somehow prevent Canadian action on climate change. But there is nothing in the FIPA that prevents either party from regulating in the public interest, including with respect to health, safety, human rights and the environment.
All foreign investors in Canada are subject to the same laws and regulations as domestic investors. FIPAs do not prevent Canada from altering its laws or regulations, nor do they allow foreign investors or companies to force a government to change its laws and regulations.
The author argues that the FIPA "makes special allowances for confidential settlements with Chinese investors." This is not the case. In fact, this agreement – a first for any foreign investment agreement entered into by China – ensures that any challenge taken by a Chinese investor against Canada can be conducted with full transparency in accordance with standard Canadian government policy.
The Canada-China FIPA is similar to the 29 other investment treaties Canada has brought into force with key partners. It will put Canadian investors on a level playing field in the Chinese market.
The author says "a key purpose of the deal was to open Canadian resources to China and to preserve the value of Chinese assets in Canada." This is incorrect. The key purpose is to create a stable, predictable investment environment for Canadian investors in China and Chinese investors in Canada, to give them the confidence they need to conduct business. That in turn will stimulate investment and prosperity in both countries.
Ian Burney, assistant deputy minister, trade agreements and negotiations, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada