Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre stand in the House of Commons on Oct. 3, 2023.BLAIR GABLE/Reuters
Hands off
Re “Putin confidently declares ‘new world order’ after his good week” (Oct. 26): In 1939, the League of Nations kicked out the Soviet Union following its invasion of Finland.
Contrast that to last week, when United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres travelled to Russia and shook the hand of Vladimir Putin, who started the largest war in Europe since 1945 and for whom there are outstanding arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court.
How can Canada continue to support such institutions? Lester Pearson must be rolling in his grave.
Michael Colborne Toronto
Lost leader
Re “Liberal MPs lack the means – but mostly the courage – to take down their Leader” (Oct. 25): Thanks to columnist Andrew Coyne for pointing out the enormous elephant in the room: fear.
Fear of retribution by the unelected Prime Minister’s Office and therefore the Prime Minister. Fear of not getting a committee position. Fear of not being appointed to cabinet. And, when no longer an elected official, fear of the long arm of the party that influences employment opportunities.
This happens in all parties, but the Liberals seem to have refined it to an art form.
Shame on the PMO. Shame on Justin Trudeau.
Kathleen Glynn-Morris West Vancouver
Re “Why won’t some leaders leave? Their staff may be part of the problem” (Oct. 28): Contributor Robert Pattillo aptly quotes Lewis Carroll on the importance of knowing where one wants to go.
Equally apt, I believe, was a pronouncement by the great people’s philosopher Yogi Berra: “If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up someplace else.”
Michael Paré Ottawa
The fact that Justin Trudeau is so far back in the polls against Pierre Poilievre shows me what a weak Prime Minister he is.
The fact that Mr. Poilievre could well wind up giving an election back to Mr. Trudeau, if he continues his often bizarre statements, shows me what a weak prime minister he would be.
The job, then, is far too big for either of them.
Tony Fricke Calgary
Sinking ship
Re “Canada must embrace structural reforms to solve its productivity problem” (Report on Business, Oct. 24): Contributor Jonathan Ostry implies that it is the “small minority of losers” who are the culprits that derail policies that raise living standards.
According to multiple analyses, the top 1 per cent owns more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent or so. This trend started with the economic reforms of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, with the premise that all boats float on a rising tide.
But some boats floated up while the majority sank. In Canada, societal costs previously shared by the community, through progressive taxation, were devolved downward, first to provinces, then municipalities and then to the individual.
The consequences of 50 years of increasing productivity and societal reconstruction are clear to me: a housing crisis; broke education systems; failing health care systems; increasing homelessness; crumbling infrastructure, etc. Hardly a recommendation for the 50 per cent of “losers” to vote for more of the same economic medicine.
Alan Ball New Westminster, B.C.
In trust
Re “Health care providers press Ontario to limit restrictive insurer-pharmacy deals” (Report on Business, Oct. 24): Trust is vital in health care. Many of us use independent pharmacists who have earned our trust.
But chains have violated public trust: An Ontario College of Pharmacists survey found that more than 80 per cent of pharmacists working for chains “have felt pressure to put the bottom line ahead of patient care,” versus 18 per cent in independent pharmacies (”Loblaw’s health care empire is growing. But can it earn the trust of Canadian patients?” – Report on Business, Aug. 10).
Patients expect pharmacists to focus on health care ahead of profit. If forced to leave my trusted independent and use a chain, I’d feel less safe.
Roy Cameron Kitchener, Ont.
Come from away
Re “Ontario to reserve majority of medical school spots for students from the province” (Oct. 26): Ontario’s plan has similarities to certain policies in Quebec. I find these restrictions misguided.
Of course, we don’t expect local taxpayers to subsidize tuition for foreign students, but that is not necessary. Foreign students at Canadian medical schools could be charged “market rate” for tuition, comparable to those of U.S. Ivy League medical schools.
There is global demand for high-quality medical education, and there is an opportunity to train some physicians “for export,” using their tuition fees not only to cover costs, but also to generate funds for cash-strapped medical schools without reducing the number of positions available to local applicants. Some of these foreign students might be interested in applying to stay after graduation, which could help with physician shortages.
In any case, their presence enhances the diversity and educational experience of the entire medical school class.
Michael Pollak MD, FRSC; Alexander-Goldfarb Research Chair, departments of oncology and medicine, McGill University; Montreal
Give back
Re “CAMH reveals identity of megadonor who has given $200-million to the hospital” (Oct. 25): The damaging effects of Canada’s addictions crisis are seared into the minds of those who fail, through no fault of their own, to deliver mental health care.
The futility of “finger in the dike” approaches to meet care goals continues to permeate government discourse. The taxpayer dollar is stretched and, at the end, it’s still all about dollars.
Bruce McKean’s willingness to share his fortune arrives as communities across Canada face pressure to build housing, staff facilities and rethink care models. If he believes so strongly that the need can be addressed, so should we.
If monthly Old Age Security payments paid supportive housing for several months, here’s an idea: Take mine. And take the OAS of thousands of others who are in a similar position, direct it as Mr. McKean has done and bypass the miasmic government blame games.
Mark Cafley Victoria
On screen
Re “Religion in public schools is roiling Quebec politics once again” (Oct. 25): A new Quebec film looks at this issue from a historical perspective.
Ababouiné (or Ababooned in English) by celebrated director André Forcier is set in Montreal in 1957, when the church really did have control over education. The film featured at two major festivals in Quebec, but it was ignored by the Toronto International Film Festival.
It shows at the Windsor International Film Festival this week.
Ray Ellenwood 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