Still the Great One
So Wayne Gretzky played hardball with the Phoenix Coyotes over his contract (Star Coach, Hockey Hero And A Ruthless Player Behind The Scenes – front page, Sept. 25). Big deal. Is he the only icon ever to do that? Would you expect him to do anything less than look out for his own business interests?
Why did the Coyotes’ owners grant him special favours to be a part of their franchise? It’s because they wanted the name, integrity and general class act that the Gretzky name has demonstrated year in and year out. He is the greatest hockey player the world has ever seen, the triumphant architect of the Olympic win for Canada and a magnificent role model for youngsters as an athlete and family man.
David Dean, Brantford, Ont.
............
Kudos to Wayne Gretzky. Finally, someone has learned to overcome mortality. In his drawn-out contract negotiations with the Coyotes, Mr. Gretzky demanded that the National Hockey League club continue to pay his salary even after his death. I’d always thought you couldn’t take it with you; I guess I was wrong.
Manuel Matas, Winnipeg
Bountiful conceit
Your editorial on the B.C. polygamy case (Bountiful’s Lost Day In Court – Sept. 25) appears to be based on a rather questionable assumption: namely, that “the core values of Canadian society include human dignity and the institution of marriage.” Most people, I suspect, would agree with the human dignity part (although I’m sure that much of that agreement would fall apart when details were spelled out), but marriage, I fear, is a value we gave up when we accepted the notion of “common law” as equivalent to the religious version.
Would the Bountiful situation be more, or less, reprehensible if Winston Blackmore were not married to his many wives?
Dirk L. Schaeffer, Vancouver
Bountiful diversity
It is highly spurious to insinuate that the new proposed seat distribution for the House of Commons falls along racial lines or pits minorities against whites (Catching Up To The New Canada: Ottawa Wants To Add More Seats – front page, Sept. 25). The proposal is colour-blind, and is only about population counts. The fact that the demographics may show these new seats will be populated by a more diverse ethnic population is merely coincidence.
Where is the evidence that “a racial aspect [is] creeping” into this issue? Is anyone opposed to the new seats because of the demographics of the area? Has anyone said seat distribution should not be based on rep by pop? While the consequences of the new seats may give more of a voice to those who live in these areas (assuming they actually vote), saying the move is about race is highly dubious.
J.D.M. Stewart, Toronto
............
In answer to your extraordinary front-page announcement that adding new seats to the House of Commons “would spell [the] end of an older, white Parliament,” I can do no better than quote U.S. Representative Barney Frank when he was confronted by a protester last month: “On what planet do you spend most of your time?”
Our House of Commons is one of the most ethnically diverse legislative assemblies in the democratic world. Its 308 MPs include 34 who were born in 20 countries other than Canada. In fact, the foreign born on Parliament Hill have achieved a percentage of representation almost as great as their representation in the voting population as a whole.
Ron Haggart, Toronto
............
What Canada needs is less seats, not more. We already have enough fat-cat politicians sucking the life out of our country.
Roderick Stewart, Toronto
............
Interesting that Canadian politicians feel that, with a population of nearly 34 million, we need 342 representatives in Ottawa, while our neighbours to the south, with a population of more than 300 million, seem to get along with 435. (We won’t get into comparing Senates.)
