Republican presidential candidate and former U.S. president Donald Trump enters at a campaign event, on June 18, in Racine, Wis.Jeffrey Phelps/The Associated Press
Under fire
Re “Free rein” (Letters, July 4): I am always amused at various contributors to your paper furiously gnashing their teeth and ripping out their hair at what is looking more and more like a second Trump presidential term.
Relax. The United States is not a third-world dictatorship. It has multiple checks and balances which exist precisely to prevent overamplified beliefs in suspected abuses of power by deplorables. Democracy is safe in the United States, despite what the polar extremes may believe.
Your contributors should be more worried about the potential suppression of Canadian free speech due to various Trudeau Liberal bills being imposed with the endorsement of the NDP.
Richard Stonehouse Delta, B.C.
Re “For progressives, the Trudeau by-election and Biden debate disaster were blessings in disguise” (July 4): Had the Liberals won the by-election, even by say 5 per cent of the popular vote, we might have read that the party and brand are still strong, that the corner has been turned and good times are ahead, as long as we keep the faith and continue to vote for a hat trick of minority governments.
Thankfully that didn’t happen, and the only reflection done by the party leader seems to be admiring his own. The outcome of the next federal election looks abundantly clear, given that the cast of characters won’t change.
Pity we likely won’t see a snap election any time soon, so we can get on with restarting the engine that Canada was to the world.
Clay Atcheson North Vancouver
So far gone
Re “Pro-Palestinian protesters remove encampment at U of T ahead of court-imposed deadline” (July 4): Having earned three degrees from three different universities, I have spent countless hours on campuses and still enjoy riding my bike through the beautiful grounds of the nearby University of Alberta.
Fortunately, we haven’t had certain students (and apparently many others) camping there and issuing “demands” for the past two months as they have at the University of Toronto and McGill University. The administrations here and at the University of Calgary had the common sense and courage to deal with the issue forthwith by removing the trespassing “protesters” within a few days of their arrival.
There appears to be a clear lesson here for the well-educated overseers of our hallowed halls of learning.
Kevin McGoey Edmonton
Room for all
Re “An EV trade war with China will cost Canadian consumers heavily” (Opinion, June 29): No need for a trade war with China over inexpensive electric vehicles.
There should be room at the low end of the market for anyone wanting to supply it. Those willing to pay for luxury would continue to buy from the usual sources of comfort, convenience and quality.
Far more important to move sooner rather than later to a zero-carbon economy. Let’s not parse where the cars come from.
Let China provide subsidies, not Canadian taxpayers.
Tom Masters North Cowichan, B.C.
Whose decision?
Re “Making plans” (Letters, July 2): Developers should not be making final planning decisions; municipal councils do that based on advice from their planners, developers and their planners, residents, business owners and others.
A council can make decisions that turn out to be not in the best interests of a municipality. Then blame the council for being beholden to developers, or for caving to NIMBY residents or local business owners.
When planners advise council, their advice also reflects their own preferences. It is up to council to weigh all competing interests when they vote on a planning decisions.
Not an easy job being a councillor – or a planner.
Reiner Jaakson, retired urban planner Oakville, Ont.
Re “Inside the crisis facing Canada’s dysfunctional housing market” (Report on Business, June 29): Higher than expected first-year acceptances at the University of Guelph are faulted for the “housing crunch” in that city. It is explained that some, but not all, of the continuing financial crisis in higher education in Ontario is caused by the Ford government.
Yes, that government froze domestic tuition and government funding for colleges and universities in 2019. But to “boost enrollment numbers to meet rising costs” would ignore the provincial “corridor funding” model, where more domestic students may actually mean less per-student government funding.
If the real problem in Guelph is Doug Ford, then the real solution should be an increase in provincial funding.
Kate Lawson, associate professor, department of English University of Waterloo
Basic stuff
Re “Homeless people in Denver were given thousands of dollars for free. Guess what happened next” (June 28): A similar effort took place in Ontario under the provincial Liberal government in 2017.
As a city councillor and member of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, I was overjoyed by then-premier Kathleen Wynne’s exemplary vision in implementing the Ontario Basic Income Pilot Project (also launched in Brantford, Thunder Bay and Lindsay).
Participants could receive up to $16,989 per year, regardless of employment status. Based on a survey of 217 former participants and 40 in-depth interviews, a report from McMaster University’s labour studies department found that those receiving a basic income had better mental and physical health, fewer hospital emergency visits, more stable housing and an improved sense of well-being.
As has been the case for most good things in Ontario, Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives promptly cancelled the pilot effort upon assuming office.
Brian McHattie, former city councillor, Ward 1 Hamilton
Basic income’s ability to improve lives is also confirmed in Canadian pilots. Recipients boosted work skills, job security, health and sense of self-worth.
What about the cost? The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the net annual cost of a Canada-wide basic income at about $51-billion. This is approximately the amount we pay for corporate subsidies, 80 per cent of which are ineffective and even harmful, according to the C.D. Howe Institute (“Years of corporate handouts achieved nothing. It’s time for something different” – June 13).
Canada would enjoy a far greater productivity boost redirecting those subsidies to a basic income, from those already thriving to those needing more opportunity. Local economies would grow. Our overstretched health and justice systems would see big savings. Societal stresses imposed by the growing income gap would ease.
The bottom line: We’d all gain.
Elizabeth Snell Guelph, 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