Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
.......................................................................................................................................
Whose $50-million?
Your headline said: Party Coffers Shaping Election Strategies (July 31). A more accurate headline would have been: Tax Coffers Shaping Election Strategies.
It will be taxpayers who ultimately stand to take the biggest hit for the most expensive election campaign in Canadian history. Changes by the Conservative government to the Elections Act mean a party's spending cap for an 11-week campaign will top $50-million. Federal parties can expect a reimbursement of 50- to 60-per-cent of that outlay under the Electoral Expense Reimbursement program.
Taxpayers also pay the freight for parties through generous political-donation income tax credits, which can run as high as 75 per cent. Through the magic of these tax credits and reimbursements, a net donation of $100 could potentially trigger up to $700 in taxpayer subsidies.
The more a party is able to spend during an election, the more taxpayer subsidies they can generate. Guess who benefits most from this scenario?
Susan Watson, Guelph, Ont.
.........
Which party had the most money in the recent Alberta election?
Trev Jones, Stoney Creek, Ont.
.........
The presumed waste of taxpayer money in the early election call by Jim Prentice arguably started the bandwagon rolling against him in Alberta.
Similar shenanigans might put many voters off the Conservatives in the federal election. Even an astute politician like Stephen Harper can't show such disregard for public money and also convincingly claim in the same campaign to be the best steward of it.
Sudhir Jain, Calgary
.........
Define 'effective'
Thank you for your insightful assessment of what politicians and Canadians should or should not do about the Senate – it has really helped inform the discussion (Cures That Are Worse Than The Disease – editorials, July 28, 31). There is a critical piece that still needs to be addressed on this subject: what the media should do differently.
Proposed reforms call for an "effective" Senate, but what is that, and how do we know we have that? That is the area where the media have dropped the ball. We know all about the scandals, but little about the contributions the Senate is or is not making.
Here is a quick and easy test for readers to determine if the media have helped them assess the effectiveness of the Senate:
– Name three senators who have been accused of fraud. Now name three other senators;
– Describe the role the Senate played in the crime, anti-terror, gender identity, or union disclosure legislation. Now describe what kind of cheese goes with broken crackers;
– How much money did Nigel Wright give Mike Duffy? Now name one piece of legislation Mike Duffy was involved in.
– How much do you know about auditing a Senate claim form? Now, how much do you know about the power of the Senate to veto constitutional amendments?
Canadians don't hang around the Red Chamber. We don't read transcripts, analyze decisions, review committee reports.
We rely on the media to distill that for us into meaningful information.
Guy Greenaway, Calgary
.........
We don't just have a dysfunctional Senate; we have a dysfunctional Parliament, with a largely emasculated House of Commons and far too much power controlled through the Prime Minister's Office.
Abolishing the Senate while leaving the Commons as it is with so much power in the hands of the PMO could make our federal governance worse, not better.
Blair Mackenzie, Lakefield, Ont.
.........
Her seat's taken
Re When Religious Freedom Should Take A Back Seat (July 31): The conflict between religious freedoms and equal treatment before the law pretty much only happens in the secular realm.
All people are free to believe whatever they want to. It's not about trying to change people's beliefs; I doubt that is even possible. A story to illustrate…
Years ago, I worked in a tourism information booth in Toronto when a large Christian conference came to town. Several attendees came to me for information, some wearing T-shirts proclaiming "God hates fags" and "Gays shall surely be put to death – Leviticus." And what did I – a gay man and member of a Christian faith that believes otherwise – do? I served them – promptly, efficiently, courteously and, more to the point, equally with all my other customers. My beliefs remain rock solid. If I can do it, so can they.
This "Orthodox religious man" purchased an airline ticket. Businesses open their doors to the public, and that means all of the public. Sitting on an aircraft is not a religious exercise. He is entitled to his beliefs, but he cannot demand preferential treatment because of them.
Prejudice is heinous enough on its own, but when it's religion-induced, it's corrosive to a civil society.
George Olds, Hamilton
.........
The man objecting to sitting beside a woman could book an aisle seat or a window seat, plus the seat adjoining it. That way no one – male, female or LGBT – would sit next to him and his problem would disappear into the empty space.
If his religion requires this sexual segregation and, ergo, his salvation might depend upon it, then the price of an extra airplane ticket should be an absolute bargain for him.
Gerard Ponsford, White Rock, B.C.
.........
When rivers thirst
As a former member of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Groundwater, I was pleased to see your editorial recommending that British Columbia should review the panel's report on groundwater sustainability (It Isn't Free – July 28).
Another key issue the government needs to act on is a regulation to protect environmental flows, which are the quantity, timing and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems, and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems.
As salmon lie stranded on the banks of B.C.'s rivers and streams this summer, it's more important than ever to answer the question "How much water does a river need?" and to enact strong regulations to protect those water flows.
New regulations can't make it rain in B.C., but they can ensure that we leave enough water in our streams and aquifers to keep nature (and fish) happy.
Linda Nowlan, staff counsel, West Coast Environmental Law, Vancouver
.........
'Vocal fry'
Re The Lowdown On Women And Up-Talking (July 31): Shari Graydon is being overly generous when she describes "that low, creaky, back-of-the-throat monotone typical of the Kardashian sisters" as "vocal fry."
I prefer to call it quack talk.
John Herberman, Toronto