Skip to main content
what readers think

Jack MintzChris Bolin/The Globe and Mail

Uneasy about OSC

Re An 'open letter' to Jack Mintz: A regulator's rare rebuke (Dec. 9): I am a former student of Jack Mintz at Queen's University, and I have followed his writings over the years. He has been a staunch advocate of a national securities commission. Perhaps the fact that the OSC is afraid of such a (welcome) development, for obvious reasons, lies behind the rather nasty attack on Professor Mintz. The OSC essentially is in charge of securities regulation. Is there anyone at peace as to the reliability of the OSC to manage things?

David Murrell, Fredericton


Praise for pulp facts

Re The fall of forestry (Dec. 6): This story provided an interesting look at the progressive demise of much of the Canadian pulp and paper industry. The company that particularly stands out is Resolute Forest Products, aka Abitibi-Bowater. Despite its size and large portfolio of mills, it set a world standard for neglect of its Canadian mills. In general, pulp and paper executives in Canada failed to demonstrate real competency in leadership, imagination, and investment. Meanwhile, many new facilities were built in South America and Southeast Asia, which today lead the world. We used to do so, but that was frittered away.

Martin MacLeod, Ottawa


Econ 101 fails the test

Re Another (macro) defence of Econ 101 (Dec. 2): Professor Ragan defends conventional (macro) Econ 101 as a pedagogical tool for training students' minds to confront and grapple with the complex economic problems they encounter in their daily lives.

I agree: Econ 101 should begin training the mind to handle complexity. But, conventional Econ 101 doesn't do this very well.

The stakes are high, and some first-year students, like the 70 Harvard undergrads who in 2011 walked out of Econ 101, know this and are right to be questioning what they are taught. Teaching Econ 101 should not be about preaching from some sacred scriptural text, but should rather be more of an evolving conversation among economists, and with their students.

David Pringle, Ottawa


Pipeline to savings

Re Energy East proposal (Dec. 6 letter):

For more than 60 years, TransCanada has been safely and reliably delivering natural gas. We will not transfer any natural gas pipeline capacity to the Energy East Pipeline until we have confirmed that we can first meet the needs of Ontario and Quebec . It is important to note that we are only planning to repurpose pipeline capacity that is no longer needed to export natural gas to the United States.

Repurposing part of the Canadian Mainline from a gas to an oil pipeline makes sense. We calculate these changes will save our customers $900-million over the next 15 years.

Tim Duboyce, spokesperson, Energy East Pipeline Project


Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. Submit letters at

Interact with The Globe