Jane Philpott listens to an address at the B.C. Assembly of First Nations annual general meeting at the Musqueam First Nation, in Vancouver, in September, 2019.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Sunny ways
Re “New Brunswick Liberals will form majority government, ending six years of Tory rule” (Oct. 22): Maritime voters have overwhelmingly endorsed the Trudeau-led Liberals in the last three federal elections. Now, however, it seems to be MPs from the Maritimes who are leading the emerging insurrection to oust the Prime Minister (”MPs try to tell Justin Trudeau his personal magic has become a toxic touch” – Oct. 21).
Yet Susan Holt’s provincial Liberals just won the New Brunswick election with 100 promises in their platform. The incumbent Progressive Conservative Blaine Higgs made only 11.
The Prime Minister previously had the formula for being elected in the Martimes. The premier-elect just reminded him how it’s done out there.
James Thomson Calgary
Voting power
Re “B.C. election produces another Big Bang political moment” (Oct. 21): B.C. voters were essentially faced with two (and a half) choices: the incumbent NDP, rebranded BC Conservatives or outsider Greens.
The Conservatives’ many campaign gaffes were irrelevant, as the party was the only ideological choice for nearly half of all voters with the collapse of BC United. The party simply appealed to right-of-centre voters who would have previously identified with the BC Liberals or BC Social Credit.
Political ideology counts more than party name.
John Bowden Nelson, B.C.
Re “Now what?” (Letters, Oct. 22): A letter-writer suggests that the two main parties in British Columbia could work together to produce policies they both agree on. If we had an electoral system that better reflected the views of the population, governing parties would be forced to work like this.
There would be no majority; what is now a minority party would have a large enough proportion of votes to turn the legislature into a three-way (or four-way, if BC United were resurrected) combination of seats. This would force collaborative discussion and lead to better government.
Tony Burt Vancouver
Healthy lead
Re “Doug Ford appoints Jane Philpott to lead Ontario’s new primary care action team” (Oct. 22): Ah, now we see it.
Ontario’s Premier has been under fire as the province’s health care system plunges into near collapse. With a potential election coming, it seems Doug Ford needs an all-purpose answer about why more than two million Ontarians do not have a family doctor.
I find it unquestionable that the appointment of Jane Philpott is meant to get the Premier through a campaign. If more money is part of the answer, why wait for her appointment to spend it?
I expect Dr. Philpott’s tenure to last about one day past an election date.
Larry Rose Peterborough, Ont.
The Ford government’s appointment of Jane Philpott feels like another exercise in window dressing for an issue it can’t even admit is a problem.
Health Minister Sylvia Jones says that 90 per cent of Ontarians have access to a doctor. That puts the number without a doctor at approximately 1.6 million, when the actual number is 2.5 million. It seems the government can’t even get its facts straight.
The appointment of Dr. Philpott is likely window dressing for an agenda the government already has in place: privatizing health care.
Gary Macdonald Toronto
Re “With a dire shortage of family docs, should we reassign GPs from healthy people to the more needy?” (Oct. 22) Another way to manage the shortage of medical care would be to have us all be tested annually in some basic, general way to determine our health status.
From that test, we can then be graded as to our individual medical needs. Those who score high (good health and habits) would be restricted from medical care and attention. Inversely, if one has a low score, they would receive more health care.
This makes as much sense to me as the thesis of this opinion.
Clay Atcheson North Vancouver
Spoiling for change
Re “Spilled milk that’s worth a political outcry” (Editorial, Oct. 22): While reading about the supply management system we have in Canada, my mind drifted to another thought: This is how Canada has drifted into mediocrity.
While the original thought process may have made sense in the past, all parties now seem beholden to a small lobby group, leaving Canadians with poor public policy and no will to change it.
What happened to the pandemic statement of “we listen to the experts,” when it is clear to me that supply management does nothing of the sort?
Stephen Gill East Gwillimbury, Ont.
I applaud your dogged determination on supply management in dairy.
This situation will likely only get worse. Per capital milk consumption in Canada has declined for years. Simply put, Canadians don’t drink milk like we used to.
The real question is the power of the dairy lobby in Canada. How can 10,000 farms be so powerful? No party appears to oppose the private members’ bill that seeks to make supply management permanently “off limits.”
Sacrificing the many for the few can only be explained through the power of the dairy lobby.
Stephen Kouri Toronto
A well-known and admitted fixer of bread prices was recently offering French camembert at $10.29 for 250 grams.
Without the tax of 245.5 per cent charged to protect our unwilling-to-compete milk industry, the cost of said cheese should be about $2.98. All that money seemingly to protect a few ridings in Eastern Ontario and Quebec.
We have almost no productivity growth in our country, which I ascribe to an uncompetitive environment. Think dairy farmers, banks, grocery store chains. Do we actually have a Competition Bureau?
It should be time to pour the Canadian Dairy Commission down the drain pipe of history. And let this be just the start of reviving our country.
Paul White Toronto
Big question
Re “ ‘They want revenge’: Canadian co-founder of Greenpeace, Paul Watson, awaits extradition hearing in Greenland jail” (Oct. 22): Thank you for highlighting the arrest and detainment of anti-whaling activist Paul Watson.
The question we must ask ourselves should be clear: Do we care about marine life and the conservation of marine mammals? If we believe that ocean life is worth protecting, then Canada should campaign internationally for the end of global whale hunting.
Whale populations are declining because of hunting, collisions with ships and fishing-gear entanglement. If humans choose to continue to hunt whales, we would have no choice but to accept responsibility for their eventual extinction.
Christine Bell 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