Skip to main content
letters

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

--------------------------------------------------------

Cracks on campus

Re How UBC Lost A President, Aug. 27: With the addition in the 1990s of innovation to their traditional roles of research, teaching and community service, Canadian universities abandoned their historic independence from the world of commerce. It was no doubt necessitated in large part by federal deficits that forced the slashing of health and education transfer payments to the provinces, and provincial finances in the mid-'90s were not in much better shape.

Presidents became fundraisers; professors became entrepreneurs, starting companies to commercialize their own and their students' patented research; naming rights were sold to benefactors; and students began to regard universities as job factories. This is the backdrop to the hiring and resignation of Arvind Gupta as president of the University of British Columbia.

Over the past 20 years, similar incidents have marked the underlying tensions and cynicism between traditionalists and the vanguard of this shift in university life.

Jim Heller, Toronto

----------

More than words

Words fail me as I try to express the anger, frustration and disappointment in the irregularities in our system and political management of government demonstrated by the Prime Minister's Office as revealed at the Duffy trial, including the behaviour of PMO staff member Nick Koolsbergen (What Were They Thinking?, editorial, Aug. 27).

The trial is now not about Senator Mike Duffy but is rather focused more on the workings of the PMO, where staff routinely failed to use common sense and showed a distinct lack of experience both in life and in attending to their work.

These individuals were appointed by Stephen Harper including, of course, Mr. Duffy. To anyone who has followed the development of this case even superficially, this puts into question the judgment of someone who proposes to lead this country for another four years.

Monica Cullum, Ottawa

----------

It is astonishing that Canadians seem willing to topple the government of Stephen Harper mainly over the Duffy scandal. We are talking about some $90,000, which was repaid by Nigel Wright. I believe Mr. Wright was trying to save the reputation of Mr. Duffy and avoid some embarrassment to the PMO. What a despicable crime!

Where was the indignation during the eHealth Ontario debacle which cost provincial taxpayers $1-billion and yielded nothing? Or the cancellation of the gas-fired power plants by the McGuinty government, which cost another $1-billion? Despite those huge and costly blunders, the Ontario Liberals, led by Kathleen Wynne, were re-elected with a majority.

Am I missing something or is this a Monty Python skit?

Peter Gardos, Stouffville, Ont.

-----------

Inconvenient truth

Re Harper Hysteria A Sign Of Closed Liberal Minds, Aug. 24: In his defence of Stephen Harper, Konrad Yakabuski acknowledges that "killing the long-form census" may have been a mistake, but then trivializes the issue by saying "its demise has inconvenienced some researchers …"

This is not a mere "inconvenience" to individual researchers. Business groups, think tanks, municipal governments and other planning bodies are also hampered in their attempts to gather data.

Many groups dedicated to research and knowledge, including the Canadian Historical Association, protested against both cancellation of the long-form census and the new "opt-out" clause, not only because the moves would limit current information gathering, but also because they would hamper future researchers from developing an accurate view of Canadian history.

Discussion about such issues, of relevance to all Canadians, would be welcome in this election.

Joan Sangster, president, Canadian Historical Association, Peterborough, Ont.

----------

Calling the shots

The Canadian Medical Association has failed defenceless children by not calling for mandatory vaccinations (Doctors Want Schools To Ask For Immunization Records, Aug. 27). Physicians, the article reports, do not wish to "inflame the conversation" and want to instead educate parents who have concerns about vaccinations. That argument misses the point; clearly the ultimate responsibility of a parent and society is the protection of a child's health.

Pose this simple question: Is a vaccinated child much less likely to become infected with a childhood disease? Armed with the obvious positive response, the CMA should change its policy. Once the CMA advocates mandatory vaccination, it will help politicians to ignore political correctness, grow a spine, and do the right thing for our kids.

Roy Sullivan, Sudbury

----------

Shop with care

Re There's No Such Thing As A (Worry) Free Lunch (Life & Arts, Aug. 26): BPA and its chemical replacements are allowed into commerce with little or no toxicity data to assess risks to human health. Even when hundreds of independent epidemiological studies show harm, there are insurmountable barriers against actions that would restrict or ban their use in, or on, products.

For bisphenol A, and other chemicals of concern, a major stumbling block seems to be the need for "conclusive proof" of harm. What would constitute conclusive proof, and whether this can ever be obtained, has never been defined.

Governments need to update and strengthen pre-market test requirements, especially to assess risks to fetuses, infants and children. The little-used precautionary principle implies a duty to act when there is evidence of harm, such as the research showing effects of BPA replacements on neurodevelopment, alongside other similar studies. Meanwhile, the public is left with choosing and shopping with care.

Barbara McElgunn, health policy adviser, Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, Ottawa

----------

What's in an age?

The math linked to aging is probably being disregarded in the federal election because fewer older adults are "aging" in the stereotypical fashion (Why The Math Of Aging Is Ignored, Aug. 27).

Simply because you are 65 or 80 or 85 doesn't necessarily mean you're living in a retirement or long-term care facility. Increasing numbers of older Canadians are working, or volunteering, with a desire to do so until they die, and helping to reduce the costs assumed to be linked to living longer.

Canada may have a larger number of people reaching senior status within the next 15 to 20 years, but that doesn't condemn our culture: The contributions of older adults will go on enriching our society and helping it grow, especially in terms of refuting offensive, ageist stereotypes.

Amy Soule, Hamilton

Interact with The Globe