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
......................................................................................................................................'Outrage' to spare
Health Minister Rona Ambrose's "outrage" concerning a straightforward Supreme Court ruling cannot mask a far more disturbing conclusion – the Conservative government's now-obvious inability to draft legislation that complies with our Constitution (Health Minister 'Outraged' By SCOC Marijuana Ruling – June 12).
A common thread in the various Supreme Court decisions concerning the government's so-called "war on drugs" is the court's refusal to sanction arbitrary state action. Assessing legislative constitutionality is the court's job, part of those pesky liberal democratic fundamental freedoms that protect citizens from an overzealous state.
Ms. Ambrose's claim that the court's ruling mirrors Liberal marijuana decriminalization policies reinforces this point. Instead of riffing on "Reefer Madness," Ms. Ambrose and her fellow Conservatives might take to heart the advice Junius has offered Globe readers for decades about the dangers of arbitrary measures, and draft drug legislation that complies with the Charter.
Hardly a big request of a government and its ministers.
Bryan Davies, Whitby, Ont.
.........
The Supreme Court is out of control. It thinks it is the government. It is not. The court needs a metaphorical smack.
Paul J. Larocque, Markham, Ont.
.........
This way forward
Hugh Segal's suggestion for a referendum on Senate abolition would be unnecessary if prime ministers followed the commendable example of Liberal PM Paul Martin when he appointed the Conservative Mr. Segal to the Senate: including principled individuals from other than the governing party to fill vacant seats (Four Steps To Deal With The Senate Crisis – June 12).
When appointments involve a parade of bagmen and boosters, it's hardly surprising one's sense of entitlement gets a little out of whack. But abolition would throw out the baby with the bathwater.
God knows a chamber of sober second thought might come in handy in the event the House fell under the thumb of uncompromising ideologues. (Pause for ironic contemplation.)
All we need to do to fix the problem is to demand appointments based on conscientiousness, a capability for independent thinking, and commitment to the public interest: a Triple-C Senate.
In the meantime, thank heaven for the Supreme Court.
David Greer, Victoria
.........
On Friday, I went out and bought a book for the small private school where I work. The bookkeeper reminded me to bring back the receipt so that I could be reimbursed. Seriously, how hard is this? I nominate our school's bookkeeper as Senate watchdog.
Donnie Friedman, Toronto
.........
The furor over the Senate brings to mind 19th-century English historian Lord Macaulay's remark: "We know of no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodic fits of morality."
Richard Platt, Richmond, B.C.
.........
Auditing the auditor
Auditor-General Michael Ferguson says about half the $23-million the two-year audit of the Senate cost would have been spent anyway running his office.
That leaves about $12-million that was spent directly on the Senate. Are we supposed to say, "Oh, well then. At $12-million it's a bargain"? Spending $12-million to recover less than $1-million, and to tell us what we already knew: Senate accountability is an oxymoron.
Who audits the Auditor-General's office, for common sense if nothing else? Or is that heading into oxymoron territory again?
Sarah Connolly, Winnipeg
.........
Democracy comes at a cost that cannot just be measured in dollars. The issue here isn't $23-million or $1-million.
The Auditor-General's report is a detailed picture – irrefutable proof – of the rot that has overtaken the Senate. Well worth the cost, I'd say. In fact, priceless.
Katherine MacDonald, Edmonton
.........
It took $23-million to find out that many senators do not practise the fiscal responsibility that they like to preach?
What about the Auditor-General? That $23-million would have funded Cochrane Canada for 10 years. Instead, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research will withdraw funding, and an internationally famous resource important to quality health care will suffer. The academic group in which I work to improve safe and effective use of prescription drugs could run for 40 years on $23-million. Does anyone in Ottawa have a sense of public priorities?
Tom Perry, MD, Vancouver
.........
Is the doctor in?
Jeffrey Simpson proposed putting physicians on salaries and outlined the increased number of female medical students and female physicians (Doctors Need Salaries And Pensions, Not Fees For Service – June 11.).
Next, Gary Mason lamented the fact that not enough men seek medical attention and encouraged them to do so (Men Shouldn't Need A GPS To Find Their Doctor's Office – June 12).
Anyone who tries to get in to see physicians, especially specialists, knows how difficult it is. It can take months, sometimes years to see specialists, especially outside major cities. Demand outstrips supply (as it would with any service that was 'free' to the consumer). Most of my colleagues work much harder than they want to and would welcome fewer working hours.
Women, on average, see fewer patients, work fewer hours and retire earlier. These conclusions were provided by the Ontario Medical Association. (I am not disparaging women in medicine, just stating a fact).
As more women become physicians, and as the average age of physicians increases, and we encourage more people to seek medical care, and we put physicians on salary with fixed hours and working conditions, we will find more and more patients who cannot get in to be seen.
What good is "free medical care" if you can't access it?
Howard Bargman, director of laser, dermatology, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto
.........
On a mountain
Re Canadians In Malaysian Nudity Case Plead Guilty, Are Released And Fined (online, June 12): The punishment sounds about right for the real crime in this case – a complete collapse of common sense.
"The court was told the group of 10 had challenged each other to see who could remain naked the longest in the cold. They ignored a plea by their mountain guide not to strip."
Gives a whole new meaning to brain freeze.
Robert Nguyen, Vancouver
.........
What seems to be lost in the mountaintop tempest over a few naked young bodies is the fact that we have a country (Malaysia) where in the 21st century there are people who seem to believe earthquakes are caused by offended spirits. Frightening.
Regarding cultural insensitivity, if this mountain is so sacred, why are the Malaysians allowing foreigners to tramp all over it anyway?
Joseph S. Davis, Gibsons, B.C.