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
......................................................................................................................................................................
Dream on, in Canada
Re American Dream, Delayed And Denied (editorial, Sept. 6): By offering free tuition here to the young people already in college or university in the United States who are about to have their lives turned upside down, Canada would reap an incredible return on investment.
The offer to these children of illegal American immigrants, who are slated to lose their protection under the DACA (Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals) program, would be in exchange for a commitment to hard work, respectful communication and community involvement. These young people and their families have proven their worth by hunkering down and getting this far. What better way to recognize their achievements and perseverance than to help them fulfill their dreams in "the true North strong and free!"?
Susan Simosko, Sidney, B.C.
...........................................
The "Dreamers" seem to be some of the best and brightest the United States has to offer. Why not welcome them here? Granted, many won't want to give up their American Dream (such as it is), but others may be more than willing to establish a new life in a country with many similarities to the U.S., while avoiding its glaring weaknesses (gun crazy, no universal health care).
Wendy Greene, Toronto
...........................................
Your editorial is depressingly accurate. One statement – "To protect themselves, even pro-Dream Republicans might have to vote against a bill that would be seen as favourable to illegal immigrants, no matter how humane the law might be" is the most depressing of all. Why would they have to do this? Because they would risk not being nominated to run in the 2018 midterm elections! Why would such an individual have run for office in the first place if not to improve and protect the lives of others?
Sorry, lost my head there.
Apparently personal wealth and power Trump everything else.
Ann Sullivan, Peterborough, Ont.
...........................................
Yes, that rosy
Re Yes, But Not That Rosy (letters, Sept. 6): Don Drummond and Andrew Sharpe offer an opaque observation that "Projections of potential growth, the sustainable rate of growth over the longer term, need to average through shorter-term economic fluctuations." Muddled economist-speak for "We don't know what's going on but we don't trust this optimism"?
Canada receives good marks for its economy from international organizations, yet at home we are continually told that we have low productivity and are going to hell in a hand basket. Would you rather live here or somewhere else?
Bruce Henry, Waterloo, Ont.
...........................................
Use A to negotiate B
Re Scheer Says Liberals Putting Deal At Risk With 'Social Issues' (Sept. 6): Any Canadian leader who doesn't advocate in support of the link between social issues and economic policy, in particular trade deals, fails to either understand how to use one to achieve the other – or is being swayed by vested corporate interests.
Bruce Moore, Ottawa
...........................................
Give me a break
Re Mr. Trudeau's Government Declares Class Warfare (Sept. 5): It's about time someone went to war to defend taxpayers against the privileges of professional and small business corporations.
In 30 years of business, I never paid more than a marginal tax rate of 19 per cent, if that, by income-splitting, declaring dividends, and capital-gains manipulation. My sports car and my wife's minivan were company vehicles; I wrote off home expenses, travel, entertainment and a host of other things. All legal, all within the tax code. (My accountant always suggested I append "Your Honour" to any explanation of a deduction I thought dodgy.)
Did it create more jobs, as small businesspeople would like you to believe? Sure, for accountants and lawyers who gave me tax advice. They had professional corps, too, so one of us could always write off the dinner.
This isn't about loopholes or tax dodges or some implied social contract with professionals so we don't have to pay them a fair rate. It's about fairness, about taxpayers with the same income paying the same amount. It's about time professional and small business corporations stopped being hypocrites and paid their fair share.
John Seigner, Calgary
...........................................
Margaret Wente is bang on. This is a tax grab, nothing more or less! If fairness in the tax system is what is desired, then lower the tax rate to what small businesses pay – in Ontario that's as low as 15.5 per cent. Time for a tax revolt.
Mark Greenberg, MD, Toronto
...........................................
I suspect Finance Minister Bill Morneau's explanation in his article about private-corporation tax loopholes was less about providing a cogent justification for his reforms than about offering a nod and wink to the government's real constituency – government employees and unionized workers (Tax Changes Are About Levelling The Playing Field, Report on Business, Sept. 5). How else to explain his bizarre comparison of "fairness" between an incorporated professional and a nurse practitioner or policeman?
Only someone tone deaf to how most Canadians earn a living, or blatantly pandering to a support base would suggest that the compensation-advantaged, pension-indexed, sick leave-entitled, overtime-paid, and vacation-guaranteed are somehow victims of unfair treatment. Any argument about helping the less fortunate to join the middle class by closing loopholes was lost with this absurd example.
Is there anyone who really thinks we need to make tax changes to improve the lot of the generously advantaged, unionized government or quasi-government professional? Many tens of thousands of Canadians would love to be treated so "unfairly."
Dave McClurg, Calgary
...........................................
Research, rankings
Re Canadian Schools Hold Steady In Rankings (Sept. 5): McMaster president Patrick Deane says the university jumped its ranking by hiring leading researchers who publish internationally. I, a former not-leading researcher, but an adequate one I hope, began a career by conducting my (sociological) research using mainly U.S. data because the best way to secure tenure and promotion was by getting published in "international" (code for U.S.) journals.
Once career-secure, I could work on Canadian topics, of interest and importance to the taxpayers who were paying my salary and research grants. It wasn't impossible to publish on Canadian topics in top U.S. journals, but their reviewers often weren't very interested. I largely gave up on them and published here.
When Canadian universities manoeuvre to boost their rankings, the secondary consequence for the social sciences and humanities (not natural science, I know) is to shift attention to the society which bestows the prestige to make researchers "leading": the U.S. And on the related topic of excluding Canadian PhDs from hiring short-lists, "don't even get me started," as your TV critic John Doyle would say.
John Goyder, Oakville, Ont.