People attend a rally outside Convocation Hall on the University of Toronto campus on May 27.Chris Young/The Canadian Press
Camp oversight
Re “U of T seeks injunction order to clear pro-Palestinian protest as students, supporters rally” (May 28): Of course free speech is to be cherished, along with the right to protest. However, student protests occurring on many campuses do not seem to be about those rights at all.
Students appear to feel they have the right to tell universities how to conduct business, whether it is in respect to endowments or other financial investments. They have no mandate to have input on any of those things.
They should erect their makeshift camps on their parents’ properties, or confine their protests to the streets like a picket line. If they want to run for office on their strongly held position, they have every opportunity. Then see if they can garner enough support.
No university should ever accede to their demands.
Paul Martin White Rock, B.C.
I am appalled that protesters, representing only themselves, can demand that the University of Toronto divest from any connections with Israel.
This shouldn’t be a question of “free speech.” I find they are threatening the university with their demands. It seems bizarre that the university even negotiates with them.
On what basis can this or any other unofficial group make demands on the university – demands that may not reflect the views of the majority of students, staff, alumni, the board of governors and others who contribute intellectually and financially, and whose donations and taxes help fund it?
Don Moffat Toronto
Initial scope
Re “‘Unacceptable state of affairs’: Watchdog slams handling of foreign interference intel” (May 28): So many roles and agencies: the NSIRA, NSIA, CSIS, CSE, RCMP. Maybe it’s time to pare down their number.
What is the point of having so many agencies and advisers while we are still being interfered with and played? Might as well downsize to one agency.
Even if we get the same results, at least we are not wasting our tax dollars.
Joanne O’Hara Oakville, Ont.
Chinese giant
Re “Do not merge with U.S. tariffs on Chinese EVs” (Editorial, May 27): In the same paper, an article reports that ”Hong Kong police make threatening phone call to pro-democracy supporter living in Canada.” Another is about the foreign-interference committee (”Conservatives, Bloc investigating Ottawa’s refusal to share foreign-interference documents”). And an op-ed argues that the case against democracy activist Jimmy Lai “has all the markings of a sham trial.” Did other readers experience the same cognitive dissonance as I did?
China is not a supplier on which we should rely – remember the fiasco over a promised COVID-19 vaccine? – nor is it a market on which we should build an economy.
One last thing to consider: Most vehicles today are equipped with various monitoring and recording devices. Is this information we want the Chinese government to collect?
Marc Côté Toronto
Re “China’s risky industrial gamble might end the way of the Soviet Union” (Report on Business, May 25): This feels like comparing apples to oranges.
The Soviet Union of that era was a clumsy command economy and its “reforms” were doomed to fail. China today has a huge, fully functioning market economy (with a strong state sector) run by a smart, flexible, adaptable business class linked massively to the global economy.
If the Chinese government gets into trouble, it would not be because of its new strategy of economic and scientific revolution.
Stanley Brideau Ottawa
Mission statement
Re “Eighteen years and $46-billion later, the CPP admits it could have earned more just by buying index funds” (May 24): The implication seems to be: Stop wasting the money of Canada Pension Plan members and move to a low-cost strategy based on passive index funds. However, I believe this would be an incorrect conclusion for two reasons.
First, set in the proper risk-adjusted context, the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board handily outperformed its passive investment alternative over the past 10 years. The comparability of investment performance requires not only returns data, but also risk data.
Second, the conclusion above is based on a mischaracterization of CPPIB’s approach to investing. It has chosen to become an engaged long-term owner of productive capital, rather than a passive index-fund investor. Thus it must invest in the necessary human resources to make this a credible reality.
These resources do not come cheap. However, they are essential to CPPIB achieving its mission to maximize long-term return without taking undue risk.
Keith Ambachtsheer Director emeritus, International Centre for Pension Management; executive-in-residence, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
All our children
Re “Ottawa should play fair on child-care fees” (Editorial, May 24): Yes, Quebec’s tax credit was “successful” in stimulating substantial expansion – of the for-profit centres that are now the majority in the province.
Ironically, however, a new Quebec Auditor-General’s report on child-care quality assessments challenged this concept of “success.” Strengthening previous research, it showed that both funded and unfunded for-profit daycares failed quality assessments at high rates (57 per cent and 59 per cent, respectively) compared with non-profit child-care centres (21 per cent).
Child-care quality is a known defining factor that determines whether child care is beneficial or harmful for children. With this in mind, the new report is a graphic and data-based illustration of why the Quebec tax credit – like other “fund the parent” consumer-side models – should be viewed as a simple but wrong solution.
Martha Friendly Childcare Resource and Research Unit; Toronto
Demand for affordable child-care spaces far exceeds current supply. But what is needed to reduce demand and increase supply should not be tax credits, but a real expansion plan, with capital investment from provincial and federal governments, to expedite building new not-for-profit child-care spaces – the missing piece from Day 1.
Canada should not repeat Quebec’s unfortunate decision to increase tax credits that spurred massive expansion of for-profit child care. I believe the “bottom-line” motivation of for-profit corporations is incompatible with delivering high-quality services with well-paid, qualified staff.
Highways, bridges and battery plants have seen huge public investment, but not important social infrastructure that helps create healthy communities and equitable economic opportunities.
Yes, “affordable child care cannot be a lucky lottery ticket” for parents. Nor should it be a “windfall for some,” especially not corporate investors who siphon off public funding that could otherwise go to needed public services.
Janet Davis Former Toronto city councillor; child-care policy adviser, early childhood education
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