Terror, refereed
Re Kenney Spurns Calls To Increase Security Oversight (Feb. 23): The Security Intelligence Review Committee (SIRC) only reviews security-agency operations after the fact. Defence Minister Jason Kenney and the Prime Minister maintain that we don't need oversight of the agencies' day-to-day operations. That's like saying we don't need referees in professional hockey, it's sufficient for someone to review the tape after the fact and penalize the players if they broke the rules. Does anyone seriously think the players wouldn't behave differently without referees?
The PM says judges will provide the necessary oversight, but that's only required if the security agencies plan something illegal. Continuing the analogy, it's like expecting the players to check in with the referee before the hit.
National security shouldn't be a self-policing game of shinny. This is serious.
Jason Scott, Ottawa
.........
Once lost, freedom is hard to regain. As Canadians, we must demand that our politicians protect our society – not just from the threats of the few, but most importantly from the threat we impose on ourselves when we give too much power to too few people, with too little oversight and too little accountability.
John Rudan, Kingston
.........
Stephen Harper wanted to run on his economic record, but the economy is heading south. So the new anti-terror legislation will have to do. He just has to convince enough people he can protect them. Then they'll not only accept giving up their Charter rights, but will vote for his party.
Almost anything can qualify as terrorism under Bill C-51, especially now that the RCMP has set its sights on environmentalists (RCMP Express Alarm Over 'Anti-Petroleum' Ideologists – Feb. 17).
I'm scared, but it's not terrorism in Canada that scares me.
Tia Leschke, Sooke, B.C.
.........
Limits to ponder
Re Ottawa Announces Railway Disaster-Relief Fund (Report on Business, Feb. 21): Railways for the first time must carry a minimum amount of liability insurance based on their volume of dangerous goods. The minimums range up to $1-billion.
In Canada, operators of nuclear installations are exclusively liable for nuclear damage arising from the installation they operate. The limit that large nuclear power operators must carry is $75-million.
What's wrong with this picture?
Tony Bain, Toronto
.........
Greece: Game on
Wouldn't it make more sense if the European Union cut its losses and let Greece go its own way (Greece's Way Ahead – letters, Feb. 20)? "Game theory" may have some viable aspects to it, but I have developed a "common sense theory" where I suggest that any win for Greece will be a loss for the EU.
Time will confirm my conjecture, as I have no other means at my disposal to test my "theory." Game on, and may the best theory win!
Conner Steacy, Kingston
.........
Retire at age …
Re Don't Go Yet: Canada Needs You (editorial, Feb. 21): A key question that is often overlooked in discussions of retirement is: Why is the age of retirement set at 65 anyway? The answer in part is Bismarck, who introduced the world's first public pension plan in Germany in 1889; he chose age 70 because most people were dead by then, so it was an affordable program. In 1916, the Germans lowered the age to 65; it became the standard for other countries.
Fast forward some 100 years and 65 makes no sense. Life expectancy (really, a version of average age of death) in Canada is some 80 (or more) years. For many, 66 is the new 46. I should know, I am 66 and have absolutely no intention of retiring – voluntary poverty and boredom are unappealing.
What we need is a flexible public pension plan geared to people's life expectancy by income and occupation; some should be eligible at 55, others not until 70, even 75. The aim should be to have roughly the same length of time on a public pension.
Trevor Hancock, Victoria
.........
Supremely grateful
Re Who Is Judging The Judges? (Feb. 19): Gordon Gibson worries about a Supreme Court that, seemingly unmoved by the wishes of the government of the day, upholds constitutional rights in the face of laws that, although popular for some, offend against fundamental Charter values.
We say we want a free and enlightened society in which those with different views, appearances, backgrounds, needs, abilities and orientations can live together in ways that allow all of us to flourish, express our individuality and enjoy dignity.
At least that's the idea.
When the will of the majority – expressed in the form of an unconstitutional law or decision of government (no matter how well-meaning) – threatens those cherished, hard-won values, we need a court strong enough to keep all of us in line. That is exactly what the Supreme Court has been doing.
We should all be grateful.
Trevor C.W. Farrow, associate dean, Osgoode Hall Law School
.........
Chore wars
Giving money to children when they do chores is the easy part (Should You Pay Your Kids To Do Chores? – Life & Arts, Feb. 20).
But what does a parent do when a child neglects or refuses to do the chores?
Generally, parents start with nagging and badgering, then escalate to threats of docking the allowance. Money has now become another weapon the parent uses to control. All the good intentions about teaching their child the pleasure of contributing and doing for others, or learning valuable life and financial management skills, go out the window.
The attitude we want to nurture is that each member of the family contributes and pitches in for the benefit of all, not for personal gain.
Beverley Cathcart-Ross, co-author, Raising Great Parents
.........
Children learn their values, including their attitudes about money, from watching their parents. Handing cash over to young children encourages them to be early consumers.
Allowing them to use their own resourcefulness to obtain personal funds encourages resourcefulness – plus independence, self-reliance, and self-empowerment. And, it doesn't cost a cent.
Barbara Silburt, Halifax
.........
Lonelier than …
Re He Is The Loneliest Of All Prime Ministers (Feb. 21): Jeffrey Simpson states with conviction that Stephen Harper doesn't have the network of friends that previous PMs did. Which raises the question: If Mr. Harper is so darned private, how could Mr. Simpson possibly be aware of the friends he does, or doesn't, have?
Peter Stone, Burlington, Ont.
.........
Jeffrey Simpson appears to struggles a bit to make Jean Chrétien fit his thesis, leaving out the part where Paul Martin stuck a knife between his shoulder blades.
What's lonelier than that?
David Quail, Toronto