Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, on Oct. 9.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
On the other hand
Re “Liberal outlook” (Letters, Oct 10): I suggest there is a reasonable probability, throughout most of the country, that one could openly speak ill of our Prime Minister and be assured of a receptive audience. So it is interesting to be reminded by a letter-writer that there are still Canadians willing to give Justin Trudeau the benefit of the doubt, and to even suggest he is being subjected to “scapegoating.”
As astonishing as that opinion is to my ears, I find it oddly refreshing. I think our democracy works best with a free and open exchange of ideas, and that progress is made over time. The offering of sometimes exasperating views and initiatives, then the healthy reciprocal opposition to them, results in compromises that move society inexorably forward.
Democracy lives here, even if I do wonder how much more it can take.
Dave McClurg Calgary
Speak up
Re “Poilievre banned from speaking in House of Commons over comment about foreign affairs minister” (Oct. 9): I watched Pierre Poilievre’s new campaign video last night, and noticed how often the phrase “common sense” kept popping up.
I found this so at odds with how he comes across in the House of Commons, where he reiterates his silly slogans as often as possible. How do these platitudes represent “common sense?”
Instead he tells us that everything is wrong in Canada, and it is all Justin Trudeau’s fault. His constant bullying, name-calling and vitriol toward the Liberals tell me he is an empty gong with little empathy for others.
If he becomes leader of Canada, will he remember those of us who need good health and dental care, who need support with housing and groceries? Will he care about climate change?
I hope Canadians will use “common sense” and not vote for such a pretentious leader. I believe we have more sense than that.
G. A. Teske Sherwood Park, Alta.
Re “Poilievre’s problems” (Letters, Oct. 11): I fear for our country if all it takes is a particular French accent to win over Quebeckers to vote for Pierre Poilievre.
Then again, a separatist is doing quite well right now. Is his accent just right?
Vivian Vandenhazel Cobourg, Ont.
B.C. votes
Re “John Rustad flirts with the truth – a troubling pattern among politicians these days” (Opinion, Oct.12): There may not have been a winner in the B.C. leaders’ debate, but I certainly saw a loser: John Rustad.
His gloomy portrait of a dystopian British Columbia, backed up with uncheckable anecdotes, was irresponsible. His attribution of all ills to the NDP government, regardless of external factors, was inaccurate and unfair.
His failure to bring a costed platform to the debate was disgraceful. That should have been the price of entry.
Someone should tell him that anecdotes are not policy, and voters need policy in order to decide.
James Duthie Nanaimo, B.C.
Money in, money out
Re “Guilty of anti-money-laundering lapses, TD Bank will pay $3-billion in fines to U.S. regulators” (Report on Business, Oct. 11): What a disgrace for a Canadian institution to act so badly, and be reprimanded by a foreign agency.
Where is the Canadian oversight? What penalties will we impose for such behaviour?
Or is it just business as usual for our financial institutions to flout the rules?
Robert Harrison Toronto
I wonder if the Toronto-Dominion Bank executives and senior managers responsible for the lax oversight of money laundering, which resulted in $3-billion in penalties, will pay back the $4.1-billion in incentive pay the bank set aside last year (”Big Six banks boosted year-end bonus payments across the board” – Report on Business, Dec. 2, 2023).
Seems fair to me that they should pay, not the shareholders.
Dave Carson Hamilton
Given Canada’s notoriously lax regulatory oversight of financial institution and money-laundering activity, compared with other G7 nations, I am not shocked that one of our major banks had a corporate culture that allowed such activity to flourish.
What I find most galling are comments attributed to Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions head Peter Routledge while thanking U.S. authorities for their “sustained and continuing engagement in this matter.” He said that “deficiencies in any institution’s anti-money-laundering regime are a prudential risk.”
Perhaps he should take this affair as a learning experience and finally put some serious teeth into Canada’s sadly lacking money-laundering oversight.
Kevin Bishop Saanich, B.C.
Zero cost
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: Jane Philpott’s prescription for real change” (Editorial, Oct. 9): There appears to be growing consensus that our health care system is breaking.
Seems there is also plenty of money in the system, and the ratio of doctors to patients is not out of whack. Yet 20 per cent of Canadians do not have a doctor for preventive health care, and there are lineups at emergency rooms.
To address the “health care desert,” a simple solution for preventive health care would be for doctors to be hired into specific communities on salary, akin to Jane Philpott’s model. But the reason this does not occur is because many doctors refuse.
To help ER overcrowding and lack of beds elsewhere, we should address employee absenteeism. Stories of private nursing and health-worker burnout have been in the context of hospitals working short-staffed.
As has been famously said, “80 per cent of success is showing up.”
Ward Jones Richmond Hill, Ont.
Good data
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: A dearth of data to diagnose health care’s ills” (Editorial, Oct. 7): As a health services researcher, I certainly support the collection and publication of critical data. But no number is innocent. We need to know the assumptions behind the data and what is hidden, as well as what is revealed, by those data.
With wait times, for example, we need to know how long those with an urgent case received medical care quickly, and how many of those delayed seeing a doctor until their case was severe. How many refused initial dates offered because it would not fit with their vacation, work schedule or family responsibilities?
When we count those without family doctors, how many would prefer a walk-in clinic? How many don’t know how to find one, and how many went without critical care as a result?
We need to ask such questions if we are to plan for an integrated and equitable health system.
Pat Armstrong Distinguished research professor emeritus, York University; 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