Boardroom battles
Re “How Gildan’s new CEO Vince Tyra ended up at the centre of one of Canada’s most bitter corporate battles” and “An excerpt from Alexandra Posadzki’s Rogers v. Rogers: The Battle for Control of Canada’s Telecom Empire” (Report on Business, Feb. 10): Much has been written about low worker productivity, with the blame directed at labour.
But the reporting on boardroom shenanigans at Gildan and Rogers, where qualifications for directors seem to be membership in a Canadian dynastic family, or the leisure club to which they belong, might shift that responsibility to ossified corporate governance.
Stephen Halman Toronto
Life of the party
Re “Jagmeet Singh is super serious this time” (Opinion, Feb. 10): Jagmeet Singh is a likeable enough politician, but he seems full of endless bravado and meaningless rhetoric which, sadly, insults our intelligence.
His threat to “rip up his party’s supply-and-confidence agreement with the Liberals” rings hollow and feels tiresome. He’s not fooling me.
The irony, in my view, is that if he follows through, not only would he restore NDP credibility, but his party could become the official opposition, given the current state of Liberal affairs.
Anything is possible. Lead.
Norman Damaren Kitchener, Ont.
If the NDP “wants to be seen by Canadians as a serious party capable of forming government, Mr. Singh first needs to be seen as capable of following through on a threat.” As Jagmeet Singh likely knows well, and as most Canadians know, the immediate result of doing so would be to replace a relatively progressive Justin Trudeau with a decidedly anti-progressive Pierre Poilievre.
Why does Mr. Singh keep bluffing? It seems pretty obvious.
Ronald Beiner Professor emeritus, political science, University of Toronto
As polite Canadians, should we be doing more to recognize Jagmeet Singh as co-prime minister of the ruling coalition government? Asking for a friend.
Greg Guhbin Simcoe, Ont.
Check-up
Re “I was a family doctor, until I couldn’t do it any more. I fear that too many others will follow suit” (Opinion, Feb. 10): Fee for service has always seemed a perverse way to pay family doctors.
Good, comprehensive family medicine takes time. Fee for service financially rewards physicians who minimize the amount of time they spend with each patient.
This is usually done by not listening and not adequately addressing prevention, as well as limiting the number of issues per visit and excessive prescribing. It is more easily achieved if one is comfortable with being, well, just plain rude.
Conversely, family physicians who can’t or won’t compromise their standard of care are forced to run faster and faster, for longer and longer, often at the expense of their own health and that of their families. Under this warped system of reward, is it any surprise that many dedicated, conscientious family physicians are choosing to save themselves?
Lauralee Morris MD; Brampton, Ont.
I think the world of my family physician. She is kind, considerate, compassionate, caring and, most importantly, utterly exhausted and discouraged, for all the reasons outlined by doctor Ferrukh Faruqui and even more.
It does not matter how many new spots are created in medical schools if the specialty of family practice is so undervalued, underfunded and essentially disrespected. How can provincial governments expect to have healthy medical systems when the people at its forefront are not being replaced?
Nurse practitioners and pharmacists can support, but not replace, family doctors. No wonder emergency rooms are swamped.
We need more family physicians. Start by paying them appropriately.
Barry Marynick Mississauga
For those of us lucky enough to have a family doctor, what’s the image that comes to mind?
Someone who’s knowledgable, to be sure. Someone central to your family’s flourishing, yes.
But how about relaxed? How about content and comfortable with their day? No, they’re harried. They’re hustling all the time and they look ready to hang it up.
We better fix this broken system for their sake and ours.
Jayson MacLean Ottawa
Trump effect
Re “First, Trump tried to overthrow American democracy. Now he is attempting to overthrow the rule of law” (Opinion, Feb. 10): I am struck by the reality that the prospect of Americans re-electing a leader of such contentious standing is alarmingly high.
Donald Trump is a figure accused of manipulating the legal system for personal gain, whose leadership has been marred by numerous allegations of misconduct. That a leader would leverage NATO security obligations as a bargaining chip deeply concerns me. It undermines the collective defence principles that underpin our international alliances.
The dire scenarios depicted in dystopian literature seem all too possible, should the United States tread down this path once more.
Paul Agro Hamilton
Donald Trump saying he’d sic Russia on NATO members who haven’t paid their bills is pretty rich, coming from a man who is notorious for stiffing his own creditors.
Elizabeth Block Toronto
Donald Trump’s most ominous threat is the United States not coming to the aid of NATO countries paying less than their fair share. Canada would be near the top of that list.
Given our defence and security vulnerabilities, most notably in the Arctic, this is not a threat to be taken lightly. We should urgently plan to meet the NATO spending target of 2 per cent of GDP, in order not to be perceived as a freeloader.
To Defence Minister Bill Blair: Where is the long overdue defence review?
Tony Whittaker Toronto
Years ago, my social psychology professor made the case that over-the-top denigration often results in people adopting the behaviour being condemned.
His example was the images of grotesque, diseased lungs used to discourage smoking. Young people rejected the scare tactic despite its accuracy and lit up as usual.
Which brings me to the description of Donald Trump as an “utter psychopath,” vile and devoid of human impulses. It’s possible that his shockingly high approval rating makes the professor’s point: His anti-democratic, narcissistic, self-serving pronouncements are so unbelievable that worshippers in the cult of Trump continue to be true believers.
The truth, it turns out, doesn’t always set us free.
Michael Craig Owen Sound, Ont.
The crisis is not the monster himself. The crisis is the millions of Americans who support the monster.
How has it come to this?
Lesley Barsky Toronto
..................................................................................................................................
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