Former Ontario NDP leader Stephen Lewis speaks during the 2016 NDP Federal Convention in Edmonton.CODIE MCLACHLAN/The Canadian Press
Lifetime legacy
Re “Stephen Lewis: a man of moral vision” (April 2): I have been grumpy about Stephen Lewis since he kicked me and other Waffle members out of the Ontario NDP in the last century.
Who knows? In hindsight, it may have been justified. Nonetheless, I carried that grumpiness against him, despite being a long-time party supporter both provincially and federally.
That said, when I read of his death just after Avi Lewis’s leadership campaign success, my first thought was sadness. The second was that he was a good man, despite our differences. The third was that hatchets should be buried.
I hope Avi Lewis can restore the party and wish him success. I mourn the loss of Stephen Lewis and his grandfather David Lewis, both decent leaders.
Ann Cowan Buitenhuis Vancouver
Re “NDP Leader Avi Lewis vows to move party to the left and stop oil industry expansion” (March 31): Will Avi Lewis drag the NDP too far to the left? Not to worry.
Margaret Thatcher gave us this prescient warning: “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” Exhausted Canadian taxpayers are those “other people.”
Politicians of every party would do well to remember: The government has no money. It’s our money.
Martin Birt Uxbridge, Ont.
Political commentators seem either bewildered or appalled, and don’t understand how the NDP could be so foolish. Let me explain why Avi Lewis won such a resounding victory.
For millions of Canadians, our economic system no longer works. People are juggling multiple jobs and using food banks because they can’t make ends meet. They experience its dysfunction every day. He is saying out loud what so many of us know.
Mr. Lewis is mocked for his belief in public options for groceries and telecoms. Yet these same people have no problem with our oligarchic grocery stores and phone companies that pile millions of dollars in profit for shareholders while keeping prices high. Public options would introduce something I assumed free market types support: Actual competition.
So mock away, but I respectfully suggest to the commentary class that they will likely end up with a big surprise in the years ahead.
Christopher White Hamilton
Public vs. private
Re “Government-run grocery stores: A leftist idea coming from the heart, not the head” (Report on Business, April 3): Does anyone really believe the government can operate grocery stores more efficiently than Loblaw, Walmart or Costco? Their buying power and economies of scale should make it impossible for a publicly funded store to be competitive.
The profit on items sold averages only about 3 per cent. These stores make a lot of money because of sales volume, not huge markups.
Also, can anyone even think of a government business or enterprise or publicly run operation (schools, transportation, health care) that is not in serious financial trouble? Neither can I.
Les Shinder Ottawa
I do not understand why Toronto does not simply donate to food banks and soup kitchens or increase their funding.
These existing food distribution sources are facing large increases in demand and shortages in funding. They have infrastructure in place and volunteers available to run things.
Richard Temblay Toronto
Everything is automatic
Re “Industry Minister rejects Stellantis plan to build Chinese EVs at idled Brampton plant” (April 3): I suggest the Ontario auto sector let go of any illusion that the industry will be a major employer in the future.
Gone are the days of labour-intensive assembly lines and cross-border parts supply chains. One only has to look at a Chinese auto plant to understand this.
Artificial intelligence and sophisticated robotics have replaced most auto jobs. Chinese factories are producing high-performance, low-emitting, low-cost vehicles.
I believe Ontario made the right decision to pump more money into postsecondary robotics and engineering programs, but it should take the next step and apply this knowledge to industry. If Ontario wants to continue being an automotive hub, it should embrace modern manufacturing methods.
Perhaps the Stellantis plan to assemble made-in-China auto kits is not such a bad idea.
Mary Burge Toronto
Leave alone
Re “B.C.’s move away from self-regulation for health workers is imperfect, but overdue” (March 31): I am a bit confused why you welcome British Columbia’s “blow to self-regulation.”
As mentioned, there will be no recourse to appeal for decisions of disciplinary tribunals. Similarly, all complaints will be public (immediately?) except when “unfounded.”
There are certainly bad apples around, but there are also vexatious complaints. At best, this seems like micromanagement of professional conduct by the government and a blow not to self-regulation, but procedural fairness.
It’s also worth pointing out that most physician colleges already include members of the public on their boards.
Joshua Gould MD; Corner Brook, Nfld.
Re “Side effects include a lack of justice: B.C.’s overreach on healthcare regulation” (Editorial, April 1): I am a B.C. psychologist in practice since 1998. I closed my practice on March 31 because of this legislation and now practice virtually into Ontario and Alberta. I have followed this debate closely, and with considerable personal cost.
Even Harry Cayton, whose 2018 report sparked the legislation, now says the government went further than recommended and he is concerned about political influence over independent regulation. As a clinician, I am not surprised.
The standards of practice produced by my now former college contain contradictions and requirements written without full input from practicing psychologists. I could not determine, on any given day, whether I was in compliance.
The Ministry of Health cites three cases to justify the overhaul. Is that all? I believe those cases reflect colleges exercising poor judgment.
What the government built instead punishes every practitioner in every profession for the governance failures of a handful of colleges.
Christine Korol PhD, CPsych; Vancouver
Vicious cycle
Re “Federal, Ontario governments to spend $8.8-billion to cut municipal development charges” (Report on Business, March 31): Senior levels of government, in order to manage budgets, have downloaded to municipal governments all kinds of costs related to everything from refugee housing to addiction management.
Municipal governments were then driven to develop their own revenue streams, such as development charges, to fund these new and often unexpected expenses. Now we have Mark Carney and Doug Ford offering funding for new residential infrastructure in exchange for reducing development charges, in the hopes of encouraging and reducing the cost of home construction.
Round and round we go.
Neville Taylor Toronto
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com