Rocks, Quebec's hard places
As an American living in Quebec for the past five years, I've gone back and forth on the issue of tuition hikes (The Illusion of Power – editorial, May 16). The emotion I've finally landed on is admiration.
Québécois students and their supporters are refusing to roll over and allow education to become a financial burden. The magnitude of the protest is inspiring and absolutely necessary. You do a grave disservice to English Canada by painting the protesters as window-breaking thugs high on the illusion of power. It's irresponsible fear-mongering.
As students in various universities in New York take up the cause by donning red squares, I only hope that the indignation and momentum of Quebec's student strike will continue to spread.
Mikhala Lantz-Simmons, Montreal
.........
Alluding to the protesters as the side with "more rocks in their hands" overlooks the alarming measures on the part of the police force, aptly described as "unduly aggressive" by Amnesty International. I am more concerned about the side using preventative arrests and plastic bullets, silencing opposition and infringing upon civil rights.
Lara Cousins, Montreal
.........
Your editorial could also have noted the fundamental injustice of the students' attempts to maintain their low tuition fee entitlement. The students are disproportionately the children of more affluent parents. Their degree permits most of them – despite Margaret Wente's observations – to join the more affluent groups in society with higher paying jobs and more interesting employment. The government share of their tuition costs is in fact a large subsidy amounting to somewhere around $60,000 to 75,000 over a five-year period.
What about those who do not go to university? Their voice is not heard. Their fate, by and large, is one of more precarious employment, lower-wage jobs, and less interesting though vitally important work.
If Quebec's students were truly interested more in social justice, they would be concerned about the unfairness of a system for the financing of higher education that ignores those who do not go to university while subsidizing generously those who do.
Archibald R. M. Ritter, Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Economics and Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University
.........
The popular media repeatedly remind us that Quebeckers pay the lowest tuition in Canada, what do they have to complain about? Well, public services should reflect the cost of taxes. People easily forget Quebec pays the highest income tax rate in Canada.
Kristian Laughlin, postgrad student, public administration, University of Ottawa
.........
It's in the bags
Bruce Kirkby expressed it well: How sad it is to see our planet littered by these plastic bags in the most unusual places (Earth's Ugly Tangle Of Plastic Bags – May 16).
Toronto Mayor Rob Ford's idea of abolishing the five-cent bag fee would be a huge step backward. Money is the great "encourager" as shoppers take the time to return shopping carts for a 25-cent refund and bring their own bags when shopping. The only alternative would be to outlaw plastic bags altogether. Baby steps, baby steps.
Isabella Beattie, Chatham, Ont.
.........
Because I now rarely get plastic bags at the grocery store, I have none at home for my biodegradable kitchen garbage, kitty litter and household garbage.
I have to buy plastic garbage bags – clear, blue, white – to replace the grocery bags I used to have on hand for recycling. Give us back free grocery bags and let us use them responsibly. We know how.
Heather Grant, Toronto
.........
As a Torontonian, I am fed up with the plastic-bag debate. Let's focus on something important – like the appalling state of the city's water supply and sewage infrastructure. A huge time bomb waiting to explode beneath us, the costs to deal with this sleeping giant are so astronomical no politician wants to go anywhere near the issue. Our political ostriches are in for a rude awakening.
John Grimley, Toronto
.........
Nicole Eaton replies
Far from quashing debate or freedom of speech, my inquiry has been very successful in starting and promoting a very national, very open debate on this issue (Tory Rhetoric Creates Chilly Climate For Free Speech – editorial, May 12; Wildly Uncharitable Allegations – editorial, May 7).
We call for transparency, disclosure and enforcement. We expect complete transparency from politicians; why not expect the same from charities? In a recent Angus Reid poll, 80 per cent of respondents supported greater transparency.
Millions of dollars are crossing borders. We know of at least $300-million that have come to Canadian charities from foreign foundations. There are charities that act as nothing more than fiscal clearinghouses by accepting donations and forwarding the money to organizations that do not qualify for charitable status and therefore cannot issue income tax receipts.
As far as undermining Canada's national economic interest, how else do you explain what's happened to the seal hunt? Or the B.C. salmon industry, which has been devastated while, coincidentally, the very same Alaska salmon industry is soaring?
My inquiry simply brings to light some inconvenient truths.
Nicole C. Eaton, Senator
.........
Acts, by other names
Kudos to The Globe for taking a stand against the legislative abomination that is Bill C-38 (Step Down From That Omnibus – editorial, May 16). In the spirit of its Orwellian title – the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act – perhaps its component parts should carry names such as the Gutting of Environmental Protection Act, the Down with Pay Equity Act and of course the Let's Nail Future Low-Income Seniors While Not Annoying Today's Conservative Voters Act.
Ron Hartling, Kingston
.........
Politically (in)correct?
It's true that, quite unlike today, a great deal of work actually got done in Congress when Lyndon Johnson was president (A Congress Without Compromise Serves No One – May 16).
But as much as Americans say we want our President and Congress to compromise and accomplish something, I doubt that in today's world we'd accept a president like Johnson, who once said he felt sorry for people who didn't drink because however they felt when they woke up in the morning was as good as they were going to feel all day. Much less a president who proclaimed that "there is but one way to work with the Congress, and that is continuously, incessantly, and without interruption. If it's really going to work, the relationship between the president and the Congress has got to be almost incestuous."
Any president or member of Congress, effective or not, who spoke that way today would be cited for politically incorrect behaviour and likely sent to behavioural modification training.
Mary Stanik, Minneapolis, Minn.