A reader writes that the U.S. is giving up its leadership position on the development of mRNA vaccines and therapeutics.The Associated Press
Break down
Re “The slow road to a mobile work force” (Editorial, Sept. 6): Canadian provinces and the federal government have it within their power to do away with internal trade barriers, including those affecting employment. It is projected that such measures could help our economy’s GDP by making up much of what Donald Trump’s tariffs have cost us.
We have no one to blame but ourselves if we drag our feet on this issue. The federal government alone cannot effect the removal of internal barriers. Provinces should co-operate and work both among themselves and with the federal government, taking charge of one crucial factor that Canadians themselves can implement – if they have the will to do so.
Elaine Arnusch Regina
The problem runs deeper than slow credential recognition. It’s systemic.
At last count, there are more than 400 licensing bodies across Canada, each with its own self-created standards for certification and accreditation. From hairdressers to engineers, these siloed organizations operate with little co-ordination, guarding their turf under the guise of public protection. The result? A fragmented system that punishes qualified professionals for crossing provincial borders.
Imagine the possibilities if Canada took bold action: Eliminate these redundant bodies and establish a national board of regulated professions. One unified standard, applied coast to coast, would not only streamline credentialing but unlock true labour mobility, especially critical as we face talent shortages in health care, construction and technology.
This isn’t just about efficiency. It’s about fairness, productivity and national cohesion. The longer we allow provincial gatekeeping to persist, the more we undermine our own workforce potential.
Stop tinkering and start transforming.
Stephen Cryne President and CEO, Canadian Employee Relocation Council; Toronto (CERC)
Welcome mat
Re “The summer (and fall) of our COVID discontent” (Opinion, Sept. 6): Rarely does Donald Trump hand Canada a gift, but the decision by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to cancel US$500-million of mRNA research is just that.
MRNA vaccines and therapeutics are some of the most promising biotechnologies that have come to market in years. They proved their value during the pandemic, and we’re still scratching the surface of what they can mean for disease prevention and treatment.
There were 22 research projects underway using U.S. government funds that are now in limbo, including projects by Moderna. In 2024, Moderna completed a state-of-the-art production facility in Laval, Que. What would it take to have Moderna resume those projects in Canada?
It shouldn’t be hard to convince a company that is in Mr. Trump’s crosshairs to expand north of the border. His decision to give away the U.S. leadership position on this immensely important biotechnology is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that Canada shouldn’t miss.
Stewart Jensen Shanghai, China
Hidden costs
Re “How younger Canadians end up paying more for boomers’ medical care” (Report on Business, Sept. 6): More than 30 years ago, as a doctoral student at the University of Southern California Leonard Davis School of Gerontology, my courses in health care policy reiterated this same argument, with current-day boomers assuming the financial burden.
Medical expenses begin to accelerate at age 65 and escalate with age. While the “arithmetic is straightforward,” these data neglect the substantial contribution that middle-aged and older adults make to the health care system in the form of unpaid caregiving for friends and family members. While lovingly given, it comes with significant physical, emotional and financial costs.
The Canadian government has increasingly relied on caregivers to bridge gaps in the health care system, with an estimated annual savings of $25-billion. These invisible contributions should be integral to any discussion of intergenerational inequity in health care.
Candace Konnert Former director, Healthy Aging Lab, University of Calgary
More for men
Re “Canadian campuses are mostly female. What are men doing instead?” (Sept. 6): Women are to be celebrated and encouraged; men, especially old white guys, are to blamed.
Isn’t this a justifiable credo for the 21st century? Contrast the notoriety of Jeffrey Epstein, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin and Peter Nygard with the celebrity of Anita Hill, Margaret Atwood, Roberta Bondar and Elizabeth May.
While acknowledging the sins of so many fathers and the incalculable harms done to their victims, shouldn’t society focus on encouraging their sons to be good people? Reducing the alienation of young men from the education system would be a start.
Stephen Hazell Ottawa
The widening gender gap in higher education cannot be understood without also looking at the labour market.
For decades, we have rightly encouraged women into traditionally male-dominated and respected professions: doctors, lawyers, CEOs, firefighters. But the encouragement seems selective. We rarely urge women toward the most gruelling, least desirable jobs – truck driving, oil rigs, sawmills – roles still overwhelmingly filled by men.
As a result, the “better” jobs are becoming gender-diverse, while the hardest, least respected jobs remain nearly all male. If we are serious about fairness, we should confront this imbalance, too.
Keith Fowkes Ottawa
In the summer of 2012, my youngest son, 10 at the time, went to an engineering camp at Western University and he loved it.
I noticed that there was an engineering camp that continued into fall, but it was only for girls. I inquired about classes where boys were included, but there were none. I was told that until more women entered engineering programs, they did not foresee including boys in these classes.
With the ways things are going, perhaps we will need programs geared to young men. We are fortunate that both our sons have now graduated from university. It is my hope to set up a bursary, specifically for “boys only,” at their alma mater.
E.L. McDonald London, Ont.
Cancel culture
Re “After 20 years working in Canada’s cultural sector, I can finally speak out without fear” (Opinion, Sept. 6): If every misstep risks cancellation, art stops provoking and starts pandering.
That’s not progress – it’s the death of artistic freedom.
Thomas Howlett Stratford, Ont.
Selected readings
Re “Comments are closed to prevent abuse and misinformation, not censor opinion” (Sept. 6): I have a straightforward solution: Strive to be the adult in the room and either ignore online comments or go back to the ethos of only publishing letters with people’s names attached.
One gets the sense that we have a bunch of fragile millennials who are surprised that people operating behind pseudonyms will write unsavoury things. Having been the target of vitriol from my own published opinions, I can attest that comments are often insightful, sometimes kind, periodically stupid and occasionally hateful and frightening.
My solution was to not read them and live my life. Do that.
Rory Gilfillan Selwyn, Ont.
..................................................................................................................................
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