Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a news conference in Vancouver on Sept. 14.ETHAN CAIRNS/The Canadian Press
Emotional weight
Re “Pierre Poilievre says hope is a leader’s most important job. It’s not” (Sept. 13): There is one thing that politicians use to get themselves elected, and then that one thing can get them into trouble: emotion.
Pierre Poilievre knows this, and Justin Trudeau knows it well. After all, it was the emotion behind “sunny ways” that got him elected in 2015. When the electorate starts to see behind the ideal future that “sunny ways” and “bringing hope” convey, we would again elect competent governments, which run according to reason and critical thinking.
Otherwise, we are destined for more of the same: folly. After all, emotions don’t think.
Bruce Hutchison Ottawa
Drive away?
Re “Is it time to back out of 24 Sussex Drive?” (Editorial, Sept. 12): There is no doubt in my mind that a new residence will cost more than any renovation of 24 Sussex. Now it is suggested to include drone-proof roofs and other security measures.
If there is no proper specification for a new construction compared to a renovation, there will likely be creeping costs as new “requirements” are defined by external interests. There should be independent analysis of the two options, taking into account the heritage value of 24 Sussex and providing a clear definition of the security requirement.
Make a decision and start building so that Canada’s prime minister, whoever they are, does not have to be party to that decision.
Fred Pincock Oakville, Ont.
The legal answer is: No.
The location of the home for prime ministers is specified at Section 2 and Schedule 1 of the Official Residences Act. It cannot be relocated without an act of Parliament.
Furthermore, under Section 6, the government’s statutory duty is to “maintain, heat and keep in repair the buildings on the lands described … and the National Capital Commission shall maintain and, from time to time as required, improve those lands.”
Canadians remain free to speculate on the likelihood of garnering parliamentary consensus on a new statute for a different location. But if Canada is finally to cut the Gordian knot, the legally obvious course – not to mention the most practical within any reasonable time frame – would be to “maintain” and “improve” the current designated location.
Marc Denhez and Russell Gibson Ottawa
Building plan
Re “It’s not that we have too many people. It’s that we have too few houses” (Sept. 13): Even if it was possible to remove or reduce planning road blocks, increase dramatically the numbers of construction workers, open vast swathes of land to developers and pour billions of dollars into infrastructure, affordability would still elude us.
Bigger is not necessarily better. Stop demonizing people who cling to dreams of a house with a backyard. It doesn’t have to be a mansion on an estate. Believing that we can absorb the equivalent of a Calgary or an Edmonton every year, and still drive down the price of housing, is more like a pipe dream.
By all means do not stop immigration altogether (good luck with that), but be more realistic as to how we can absorb newcomers and give them a decent shot at achieving the dreams that drew them to our shores.
Colin Lowe Nanaimo, B.C.
A partial solution to a rapid increase in housing units would be to activate Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as a long-term direct lender to universities and colleges, seniors, non-profit housing organizations and low- or middle-income families.
Such lending to the non-profit sector, in particular, would directly increase multiunit housing for students and seniors, and ease the pressure they impose on existing housing stock in many municipalities.
It’s a mystery to me why the government hasn’t activated aggressively such a direct-lending program and put CMHC to work implementing it.
Peter Green Halifax
Re “Trudeau unveils housing funds for London, offers no details on broader plan” (Sept. 14): Canada requires an additional 3.45 million homes by 2030.
The program for London, Ont., would see the government contributing $37,000 each for 2,000 houses. We can only hope that this level of support is not typical, since it would amount to roughly $130-billion for 3.45 million homes. This coming from a government pledging to reduce costs.
While one has to wish the government well, there looks to be no real prospect of achieving this goal.
John Sutherland Calgary
On the other hand
Re “If Chrystia Freeland needs a tool to help Canadians, she should start by freezing spending” (Editorial, Sept. 13): The Globe has argued for action on housing and homelessness and also a freeze on spending. We can’t do both.
Developing the 18,000 supportive housing units required in Toronto would cost $7.2-billion. There are more than 3,000 people on the supportive housing wait list.
A spending freeze would ensure they remain there.
Steve Lurie CM; senior fellow, Wellesley Institute; Toronto
We can’t have more or improved social programs and practice fiscal restraint at the same time.
The cost of subsidized daycare and drug and dental programs are going to drain the public treasury. The cost of caring for one million new Canadians every two years is also significant. We don’t have enough housing units.
We can’t keep passing on these costs to our kids, who would have to pay these bills in the future. Increasing taxes and charging income-based user fees for some social programs would help us get to a balanced budget.
Fiscal restraint would mean less money for education and health care. Canada cannot afford a government that wishes to practice fiscal restraint.
Ken Stock Port Hope, Ont.
Foreign aid
Re “Ottawa mulls fast-tracking international study permits for ‘trusted’ universities, colleges” (Sept. 12): I live near an Ontario university and I welcome the diversity and vitality that foreign students bring to the neighbourhood.
There is nothing I like better than walking down the street and hearing so many languages being spoken. The whole world is just outside my door.
The issue, then, is not the students but rather the exploitation. Foreign students pay outsized tuition at colleges and universities, often making up for government shortfalls.
Foreign students are also exploited by landlords. Many live in slumlike conditions in unsafe environments, paying exploitative rents, because neither the city nor the university take responsibility for their welfare.
We should not let bureaucrats determine the Canadian experience for foreign students. They have failed these students, and each of us.
Parma Yarkin Windsor, 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