The high cost of cheap food
Margaret Wente takes issue with current efforts by food activists to encourage poor people to eat healthy food (Let Them Eat Carrots! – July 15). She raises some good points about drawbacks with these initiatives. Yet in recommending we “send them straight to a Loblaws,” she forgets that it’s more than just “nice to keep farmers employed.” Local farmers are our food security and vital to the future health of any region. However (un)prepared for crises we are, we need local support in case of disruptions to the fragile just-in-time delivery system used by supermarkets.
Also, in lavishing praise on supermarkets and Loblaws, she neglects to mention some of the hidden costs of our “bargain” supermarket food that is often supplied by industrial farms. Industrially produced food typically means high fossil-fuel use and pollution, massive fresh-water use and waste, health risks for underpaid (mostly) immigrant workers, and factory-farmed meat pumped with hormones and antibiotics.
So let’s be smart about how best to feed the poor and encourage them to make healthy choices, and also be realistic about what we are actually paying for our cheap, abundant food.
Chris Bocking, Peterborough, Ont.
The right to good data
I share William Robson’s concerns about deleting the long-form census (Knowledge Comes At A Price – July 13). In “Count Me In,” our new guide to collecting human-rights-based data, we identify this information as a vital starting point for organizations working to eliminate barriers for their workers and their customers. It is hard to solve problems or run a successful business or make a good policy without all of the information – yet that is exactly what is being proposed with these changes.
Under Canada’s human-rights legislation, there is a legal duty to offer inclusive and equitable opportunities for everyone in areas like education, employment, housing, health care, etc. Without good data, we can’t measure how well we are doing or how we can improve. Canada needs the data that the mandatory long-form census provides.
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner, Ontario Human Rights Commission, Toronto
TV trivia
I like Neil Macdonald. He is a unique and polished journalist. He also has a funny brother. But I was surprised to read that he is not fully informed about Canada’s female network anchors (May The Best Anchor Win – July 15). Perhaps he was too young to remember Jan Tennant, the first woman to host CBC’s The National. Our CBC French network has been well-served by not only an outstanding field journalist but a professional anchor. I speak of Céline Galipeau.
Let’s not get overexcited about these new appointments of female anchors by CTV and Global Television. Time will tell if they have the special skills to deal with major news events, especially live breaking news, where some journalists have failed miserably and others have shown they are gifted.
Ian Fleming, Toronto
In need of a facelift
The phenomenon of non-trained physicians performing cosmetic procedures beyond their scope of practice extends well beyond the medical profession (Complaint Against Liposuction Doctor Was A Perceptive Warning – July 14). Cosmetic clinics, spas and laser centres are popping up across Ontario promising the public access to the elusive fountain of youth. Oftentimes these aggressively advertised facilities are only supervised by non-medical personnel.
As a board-certified dermatologist, not a day goes by when I don’t see a patient who has had some form of cosmetic procedure performed elsewhere by a non-qualified individual that has resulted in an adverse outcome. Patients have little recourse with non-physician-supervised cosmetic clinics should something go wrong and their grievances are often unreported because they are cosmetic in nature and do not result in death.
Unlike physicians, non-medical personnel are not subject to any formal disciplinary process in the event of an adversity. Moving forward, these non-medically supervised facilities and personnel should be rigorously regulated and scrutinized to ensure that patients can undergo cosmetic treatments in a safe environment under the supervision of credible professionals.
Samir N. Gupta, MD, dermatology section chair, Ontario Medical Association, Toronto
The Khadr file
I couldn’t agree more with Lawrence Martin about the disgraceful treatment experienced by Omar Khadr, and the inexplicable inaction shown by the government to a Canadian citizen who was a boy at the time of his alleged offence (In The Matter Of Omar Khadr, Shame On Us – July 15). Really discouraging is Mr. Martin’s revelation that Canadian opinion polls support the government’s position.
This puts the lie to the persistent whiff of Canadian smugness concerning issues of race and tolerance over, for example, the Americans.
John C.M. Riley, Toronto
.........
I am one Canadian who is deeply ashamed of Canada’s treatment of Omar Khadr. I was heartened by the recent Federal Court of Canada ruling and incredulous at the government’s response. Does Prime Minister Stephen Harper not realize this will be his legacy? And where is Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff in all this? Get on your soapbox, man!
Janet Faubert, Kingston, Ont.
.........
Bravo to Lawrence Martin for naming the guilty parties in Canada’s wretched treatment of Omar Khadr: the former Liberal government, the Harper government, the media and the Canadian public. The Khadr file damages Canada’s international reputation and human-rights record and brings dishonour to us as a people. A “national disgrace,” indeed.
Geoff Read, London, Ont.
Under a veil of prejudice
I am writing to express my dismay over the vote in the French legislature banning the burka in public places (French Lawmakers Back Veil Ban – July 14). Being a Muslim woman in Canada, I consider such a law, if it’s passed by the Senate, to be a violation of fundamental human rights. In Canada, I have all sorts of freedom to practise my faith, so it pains my heart to see that Muslim women living in France will not have the liberty to do so. Thousands of Muslim women in France and around the globe practise the hijab out of their own free will according to the doctrines of their religion.
Islamic teachings stipulate that a person’s choice of dress is a personal matter. Thus if a woman, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, chooses not to cover her head, that is her right. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to cover her head or face, that too is her right and ought never to be interfered with.
Such a law will never help immigrants integrate into society. Instead, it will lead them further into seclusion and this will only strengthen the foundation of resentment. Being the child of an immigrant family, I know that my family came here for a better future, not to impose their beliefs or ideologies upon others – nor did they come to a foreign land so that their next generations would have to abandon their beliefs.
Saira Nargis, member of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Brampton, Ont.
The plight of the right
In his continuing campaign to discredit Sun TV, Jeffrey Simpson dismisses as “bunk” the belief among conservatives that Canada’s mainstream media tilt liberal or leftward, writing, “Facts, however, never got in the way of ideological conviction” (Relax, Folks, We Won’t Be Channelling Fox News North – July 14). He could say that of his own work here.
Mr. Simpson knows, or should know, that every study of journalists in Canada – and the U.S., too – shows that an overwhelming preponderance of practitioners of the craft classify themselves as “liberal” or worse. But he ignores that reality. Instead, he writes that entire media operations, such as AM Radio, Maclean’s and the National Post, are exclusively conservative, apparently unaware that they all offer mixed opinions and editorial content.
And just what constitutes a conservative newspaper? Certainly there is no shortage of fiscal conservatism, but few outlets – and that includes the Sun newspapers – give any time or space to social conservatives except, of course, to mock them.
Claire Hoy, Toronto
A well-oiled machine
While C.E.S. Franks rightly calls for changes to prohibit the new practice of the federal cabinet, including measures in budget bills that are unrelated to spending, his claims that Parliament has changed fundamentally in other ways are misleading (Omnibus Bills Subvert Canada’s Legislative Process – July 14).
It is true that each year the House of Commons was open fewer days and fewer bills were passed under the Harper minority Conservative governments since 2004 (and during the Liberals’ majority and minority governments from 1999-2004), than during the Liberals’ minority and majority governments from 1963 to 1973. However, these things have not been caused by Parliament changing, as Prof. Franks claims.
Instead, they stem from Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper both unjustifiably shutting down Parliament for several weeks (which is why the PM’s power to do this must also be restricted as soon as possible), and more election campaign periods than usual (four in the past 10 years), because these prime ministers both called snap elections. This is why federal election dates need to be clearly fixed every four years.
As well, there is greater disagreement on issues among political parties now than in the past decade.
Duff Conacher, co-ordinator, Democracy Watch, Ottawa
BP’s murky waters
Re BP Lobbied U.K. In Prisoner Transfer Case That Saw Release Of Lockerbie Bomber (July 15): Who says oil doesn’t rule the world?
Douglas Cornish, Ottawa
