The truth is …
It is astounding how much some African leaders of impoverished nations spend to shore up their public images (African Leaders Enlist U.S. Agencies For Pricey Reputation Makeovers – Feb. 1): Amounts ranged from $60,000 to $2.5-million. When leaders of impoverished nations spend in this way, it is deemed a “pricey reputation makeover”; when leaders of a wealthy nation such as Canada spend many millions more in this way, it is “framing the debate.”
In reality, both terms denote the same process: politicians distorting the truth for political purposes. It would be easier, more accurate and certainly more ethical to label such processes as “propaganda expenditures.”
Richard Feist, ethics professor, Saint Paul University, Ottawa
.........
The truth is?
It is interesting to see how little attention the Canadian media gave to the motives of Derek Jensen, who murdered his ex-girlfriend along with two other people on a stretch of Alberta highway (The Culture Of Honour Crime – Jan. 31). He certainly had a lot of time to think about the crime he was going to commit. Rather than leading to a discussion about violence against women, Canadians treated it as an incomprehensible “tragedy.” We might discover some uncomfortable truths if we broaden our understanding of honour killings.
Mark Wolfgram, Stillwater, Okla.
.........
The U.S. line
By ignoring Pakistan’s influence on Afghanistan from the outset, Canadian leaders engaged in willful blindness (U.S. Intelligence Chiefs Give Mixed News – Feb. 1). By the time they set up an underfunded border security arrangement, it was way too late.
Much of that failure for proper diagnosis must rest with the Manley report and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT), which both said little about the destabilizing effects of Pakistan on our efforts to bring peace to Afghanistan, and with our parliamentarians who remain woefully uninformed about the regional situation.
There was sufficient evidence as early as 2002-2003 for Canada at least to have considered the regional dynamics, but both DFAIT and the Department of National Defence were obsessed with following the U.S. line.
David Carment, editor, Canadian Foreign Policy Journal
.........
R&D is ill-defined
Jeffrey Simpson writes that “Canada has industries that just don’t do much research and development … of which oil and gas are at the top of the list” (Can Ottawa Spark Innovation? It Hasn’t Yet – Feb. 1). This is only true if one takes a narrow view of what constitutes R&D.
Over the past two decades, these industries have pioneered three-dimensional seismic imaging of geological formations, the drilling of multiple horizontal wells from single platforms, and new ways of fracturing tight gas formations. Hundred of millions of dollars have been spent on these innovative activities that have unlocked billions of dollars in new wealth. Yet hardly any qualify as “research and development” as defined by the OECD or our Finance Department, mainly because they were largely undertaken by hard hats in the field rather than white coats in the lab.
Our definition of R&D is too narrow and excludes most resource-sector innovation.
Preston Manning, president, Manning Centre for Building Democracy
.........
The assumption NAFTA would see foreign-owned branch plants flooding R&D money into Canada failed because many manufacturing branch plants upped sticks for Mexico. No R&D required when you’ve just cut labour costs by 50 per cent. (Been there, done that, got the pink slip.)
Consultants get rich trolling business ads to find small manufacturing operations that can be gussied up as R&D, writing the application and taking a percentage of the tax credit they get for the company. The credit goes to the bottom line, real R&D is rarely done. (Been there, done that, got the tax credit for my boss.)
Unless regulated, business tax incentives usually go straight to the bottom line. Been there, done that, my former boss has the money in the bank.)
