Redacted pages from documents disclosed by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service are pictured after a B.C Civil Liberties Association news conference, in Vancouver, on July 8, 2019.DARRYL DYCK/The Canadian Press
Not too much?
Re “The truth should not be [redacted]” (Feb. 6): I have no doubt that China is indeed “well aware of the details of its malfeasance,” past, present and planned. So too with other foreign interventions.
However, shouldn’t there be appropriate consideration given to the extent of our public knowledge, such that those actors don’t know how much we do know of their malfeasance? It will be a fine line to walk between providing adequate knowledge to the citizenry, hopefully to strengthen faith in public institutions and people, and protecting the realm and charting a preventative, impenetrable course in future elections and other events.
With appropriate consideration, perhaps “the truth” should be judiciously redacted.
Dave Hutchison London, Ont.
From far and wide
Re “Canadian culture can be leveraged to increase our global influence” (Opinion, Feb. 3): A nation confronting major foreign policy challenges can be expected to deploy the most effective tools available. Does Canada meet that test? Contributors Kim Campbell and Viggo Mortensen don’t think so – nor do many others bewildered by an unwillingness to invest, even modestly, in the transmission abroad of outstanding achievements.
If key foreigners are unaware of Canadian achievement, it is likely because our government has failed to sustain the sources of our soft power. One example is Understanding Canada which, until funding was withdrawn by the previous government, sustained a network of 7,000 scholars in 55 countries. It was an outstanding success and regarded as one of the most cost-effective small-scale programs, whose benefits nourished intellectual-cultural cross-fertilization and positive returns for Canada’s image and exchequer.
Failure to restore funding has discouraged recruitment of Canadianists, and accounts for the dwindling of voices that explain and enhance our image abroad.
John Graham Former diplomat Ottawa
Competitive edge
Re “Prescribing a strong dose of competition” (Editorial, Feb. 7): Don’t hold your breath for serious change to competition in Canadian markets.
The old business saying, that “competition is great, as long as it doesn’t affect me,” reflects the reality of most markets, and not just in Canada. Shareholders of dominant firms largely don’t want it either, for obvious reasons. These are strong forces working against more competition.
In addition, we have in Canada a small population that can naturally, for higher-order goods, limit the number of firms that can remain viable. To top it off, we have the flawed Supreme Court ruling from 2018 allowing for interprovincial trade restrictions.
Combined, these forces require strong government measures to encourage more competition for the benefit of all Canadian consumers. So far, that’s not been forthcoming.
David Enns Cornwall, Ont.
As long as the Competition Bureau is recommending Ottawa allow foreign grocery players to enter the Canadian market, maybe it can do the same for cellular and cable providers?
With a duopoly of providers, and some of the highest internet costs in the world, I would think that additional competition might be a good idea.
Glenn Gray Mississauga
Re “Manulife backtracks plan to give Loblaws exclusive right to fill prescriptions for some drug plan members” (Report on Business, Feb. 6): A win for whom?
A biological drug can be as costly as a new car. Do we also criticize Costco for offering up to $750 for buying a new car as stifling competition?
How is this any different? This was an attempt by Manulife to contain the cost of employer-sponsored health plans, which ultimately provides value to employees. Historical annual increases for employer-sponsored health plans are well above inflation.
Go check with human resources. What options are they considering to rein in rising benefit costs?
Kirk Shand Employee benefits consultant (retired), Mercer Canada Whites Lake, N.S.
Long haul
Re “Our clinical trials system is failing Canadians with cancer” (Opinion, Oct. 3): The problem extends beyond cancer research. Although Canada is recognized for the excellence of clinical trial researchers, substantial barriers reduce the number of clinical trials here.
Ethical review is fragmented. Although some provinces have multijurisdictional research ethics platforms, investigators conducting national or international trials must apply to multiple ethics programs for approval, often with widely differing requirements. A national ethics review process was recently supported in the federal Tri-Council policy statement, but only for low-risk studies.
Clinical trial networks are a noble suggestion, but fraught with complications. We are participating in the development of an alliance of biobanks to collect specimens associated with patient data for future research. The process to date has taken more than 18 months.
Changes are needed in the Health Canada regulatory environment, the national ethics review process and individual hospitals. Until these conditions improve, Canada will likely become an irrelevant participant in innovative clinical trials.
James Robblee, MD vice-chair, Ottawa Health Sciences Research Network
Common challenge
Re “The dithering on MAID reveals the ingrained cowardice in Canadian politics” (Feb. 6): It makes me so sad to think that we are on track to offer medical assistance in dying to people with mental illness. We Canadians seem to be a group of people who are, by and large, lonely, addicted and disconnected.
Our social conditions breed so many of our mental afflictions, and our well-intentioned medical models struggle to heal the complex mental anguish, despair and anxiety that many of us experience. There is so much room for growth in our thinking on causes and treatments for mental illness, and I feel that to accept MAID for mental illness is in some way to give up hope.
How did this become framed as an issue of personal rights? I see it more clearly as an issue of collective failure.
Mark Nicol Ottawa
Working benefits
Re “Personal appreciation” (Letters, Feb. 5): Paying $25 an hour “off the street” for personal support workers was a lifesaver for a letter-writer, but those PSWs may have given more than their hard work and dedication.
Presumably, they were not covered for Workplace Safety and Insurance Board benefits, employment insurance nor the Canada Pension Plan. If they need to make a claim or retire, they would be lacking. Did they know?
Perhaps the difference between $25 and $41 an hour, in relation to the net income of PSWs, is explained by premiums and contributions for those coverages, plus taxes that can be refunded at tax time.
The weight off our shoulders might be doubly applied to PSWs. Public long-term care needs expansion.
Allan Fox 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