Demonstrators hold European Union and Union Jack flags outside Parliament in London on Thursday, Aug. 29, 2019. Britain’s Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, faced a growing and angry backlash on Thursday as his decision to suspend Parliament next month prompted protests and legal challenges, and political opponents scrambled to salvage efforts to stop a disorderly Brexit.Olivia Harris/The New York Times News Service
Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
Boris’s big-bang theory
Re Democracy Is Brexit’s First Casualty (editorial, Aug. 29): On the same page as your editorial, a cartoonist depicts Boris Johnson as Guy Fawkes attempting to destroy Parliament. Surely Boris bears a closer similarity to King Charles I, who likewise used the power of prorogation to rid himself of a recalcitrant Parliament?
King Boris, following the precedent set a few years ago by the deposed Canadian King Stephen, is doing no less. It has taken some 400 years to reveal that the English Civil War was in fact fought in vain, because today it appears that a self-endowed sense of misplaced majestic, absolutist entitlement and prerogative is sufficient grounds for a Prime Minister to circumvent hallowed parliamentary privilege – all the more so, since there exists no fear of ensuing physical decapitation.
Alan Scrivener, Cornwall, Ont.
There is another way of looking at the question of democracy. The Brexit referendum may have been close, but the result was clearly a democratic “Leave.” Parliament is under the instruction of the people to carry out their wishes. It has been unable to do so in almost three years. Therefore, even if it comes to leaving under a no-deal scenario, the people’s wish to leave must be carried out. A second referendum would be undemocratic: One can’t keep holding votes until one gets one’s way.
Peter McConnell, Oakville, Ont.
How sad is that
What a sad comment on our times: A friend of Carson Crimeni, a 14-year-old who died in tragic circumstances, requires anonymity because she said kind words about him, and fears recriminations as a result (Carson Crimeni’s Funeral, Aug. 29).
Brian Caines, Ottawa
The math on politics
Re As Latest Math Test Scores Slide, Ontario Vows To Revamp Curriculum By Next Fall (Aug. 29): Having acted as a scribe for children requiring assistance in taking the EQAO (Education Quality and Accountability Office) tests, I am familiar with the questions they must answer.
Prior to changing the Ontario math curriculum, it might benefit our elected officials’ decision-making if they were all subjected to the test. I expect their scores on both the math and language tests would be illuminating. As for the fact provincial EQAO math scores have diminished somewhat over time, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this decrease that has nothing to do with the current math curriculum.
Rather than attempting to increase the math proficiency of those who chose to teach subjects such as Art /Drama/Music/History, why not infuse money into the system to aid students who have been identified as needing more assistance in mathematics?
Brenda Bass, Kingston
It’s just so wrong
Re ‘Nobody Can Afford This’ (Aug. 29): Olivia’s story is another shocking example of ordinary families managing a rare disease with a low-cost treatment and having their world rocked by a pharma company with the tacit agreement of our government.
Hospitals, doctors and pharmacies must draw a line in the sand. The government will say these are the rules, the international agreements to which we have to adhere. We the people say no, not in cases like these where a working, low-cost solution exists for rare diseases, and an international agreement allows such rapacious exploitation. It is unjust and morally wrong.
Doctors, hospitals and pharmacists should follow the example of Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, and keep on with compounding the drug needed to treat Olivia and others like her. Follow SickKids’ lead until Health Canada gets its act together.
Liaquat Ally, Mississauga
Tolls debate gears up
Many interesting, good ideas on paying for our road system have been proffered by my fellow readers in recent days (The High Cost Of Canada’s ‘Free’ Roads – editorials, Aug. 24 and Aug. 26; letters, Aug 27, Aug. 28).
Here’s another suggestion.
Keep paying for a good portion of this universally important infrastructure through our progressive income tax system. (Drivers and non-drivers alike rely on trucks, buses, and delivery vehicles.) Pay for the rest according to usage, but with an income-progressive scheme.
For example, as previously suggested, drivers would pay by the kilometre. However, the per-kilometre rate should depend on the age and value of the car. Driving a new Mercedes would attract a higher charge than driving an old Chevy, but the first driver would presumably be able to afford it.
Mark Levine, Toronto
A letter writer suggests road usage should be measured and charged much like the way our usage of water, natural gas and hydro is measured and charged.
Wealthier people can afford the advantages of living in or close to cities and their places of work. But the less wealthy are forced by high housing costs to live in cheaper surrounding dormitory towns, and are often forced to commute by car, since there are frequently no viable transit alternatives.
For them, higher road usage is not a luxury, it is an onerous cost (and a one- or two-hour each-way commute is an appalling lifestyle burden). Accordingly, higher road-usage costs should be tax deductible – a fair, progressive solution.
That said, a properly constructed new 0.5 per cent sales tax would be a more efficient, effective and progressive way to fund improvements to roads, transit and transportation.
Harry Sutherland, North Vancouver
Increase the gas tax in lieu of road tolls? So is it the fuel that causes road congestion and demand on infrastructure – or the vehicle? By this logic, electric vehicles would pay nothing toward highway infrastructure. And yet these (highly subsidized) vehicles still take up the exact same metres of pavement as whatever else is on the road, hit the same potholes and arrive home at the same time.
Peter Ridgen, Stratford, Ont.
Hope in small things
Re Life After Death (First Person, Aug. 27): Mira Simone Etlin-Stein’s heartbreaking essay on the loss of her husband is painfully accurate. My husband died suddenly in 2017. I, too, coped with the absurdities of well-meaning friends. I, too, hate it that “we, our, us” are pronouns I will never use again, unless I include the dog. To lose a loved spouse is to lose your universe and everything that framed your life.
I have three years seniority on Ms. Etlin-Stein in this club to which no one wants to belong, and I can attest to three truths: The hole in my heart hasn’t gone away, but it has changed in some way that allows me to live; others have moved on, and they have unrealistic expectations that I should keep pace; the “big” joys may never return, but hope and contentment in small things are coming back.
Gerry Pierce, Markham, Ont.
Keep your Opinions sharp and informed. Get the Opinion newsletter. Sign up today.