A worker holds a sign promoting a sale for Huawei 5G internet services at a mobile phone retail shop in Shenzhen in south China's Guangdong province. A senior Huawei Canada official says there would be catastrophic fallout if the company were caught conducting espionage on behalf of Beijing.Andy Wong/The Associated Press
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
..................................................................................................................................
Wanted in Ontario: better leadership
Why Doug Ford wants Ron Taverner to head up the Ontario Provincial Police should be obvious: Mr. Ford is simply responding to his own election, where voters saw fit to elect a government headed by an unqualified and unfit individual, who has now assumed the mantle of Premier.
Why wouldn’t Mr. Ford want an individual, whose thin résumé resembles his own, to run the OPP, as long as he has the most necessary qualification – loyalty to Mr. Ford?
While the scale and platform is much smaller than the United States, the parallel between this behaviour and the Trump nightmare should give Ontarians pause as they contemplate the choice they made. The worst part of this is that Mr. Ford’s behaviour – double down, deny, dissemble – was entirely predictable.
Frank Malone, Aurora, Ont.
.............................................
This possible appointment is starting to sound like the script to a B gangster movie – not really plausible but, hey, it’s entertainment. Only it is possible, and it’s the kind of behaviour that can undermine our democracy.
We’re already seeing this type of scenario play out across the border. Citizens should be rising up in the streets to prevent this from happening.
Cassandra King, Clementsport, N.S.
............................................
Your editorial, The Premier’s Pal Can’t Be The Top Cop (Dec. 21), perfectly reflects the credo that appears at the top of every editorial page: “The subject who is truly loyal to the chief magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures.” Thank you from this “subject” for being a voice on this very malodorous issue!
Marianne Orr, Brampton, Ont.
The Huawei ‘mess’
A study in contrasting front-page headlines: “Bell, Telus Warn Huawei Ban Would Delay 5G, Raise Costs,” and “Canada Joins Allies In Condemning China’s Hacking Campaign” (Dec. 21). So Bell and Telus would happily trade off our security if it affects their profit?
Matthew Scholtz, Tillsonburg, Ont.
............................................
I disagree that the best way out of the Huawei “mess” is to wait for the United States to make a deal with the Chinese (U.S.-China Deal Is Canada’s Best Way Out Of Huawei Mess, Dec. 21).
That would risk killing the patient to cure the illness. This is a legal issue. Not a diplomatic one. To confuse the two, much less allow the latter to govern the former, would make a shambles of our laws, which is a greater evil.
We should wait for Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou to make the eminently reasonable argument to the extradition court that in light of Donald Trump’s intemperate remarks about using her arrest as a ploy in securing a better trade deal with China, the extradition application is hopelessly tainted, and the request should be declined. There, problem solved and Canada scores a timely victory for our beleaguered rule of law.
Ron Beram, White Rock, B.C.
B.C. voting reform: a bit like Brexit?
Re B.C. To ‘Move On’ After Voters Reject Electoral Reform (Dec. 21): Most people I know (myself included) who voted to keep first-past-the-post do not “reject” electoral reform. What we are mostly against are all the devilish details of implementation (a bit like Brexit?) being left to be decided later – no doubt in a way that favours the ruling party.
David Musser, New Westminster, B.C.
Drugs, influence
From 2011 to 2017, I was one of two public members on an expert panel, the Canadian Drug Expert Committee. I reported on more than 300 patient group submissions, most of which offered valuable insights, and cannot recall a single instance where we thought all or part of a submission was written under a drug company’s direct influence. But there were many instances where there seemed to be indirect influence (Web Of Influence – Dec. 15).
For instance, we received submissions from four patient groups about a new biosimilar, a biologic that had been demonstrated (to the satisfaction of Health Canada and other regulators) to be very similar to a considerably more expensive biologic. Three of the submissions, all from groups funded by the manufacturer of the more expensive drug, expressed concerns about the manufacturing process of the biosimilar and therefore its safety—despite the fact none of the regulatory agencies had such a concern. The one patient group that had not received funding from a drug company was far more enthusiastic about the biosimilar, noting its lower price meant more patients could be treated.
In a great many instances, patient groups that declared funding from drug companies, usually including the drug manufacturer in question, also declared they had no conflict of interest. They seemed to think that because members of the patient group authored the submission and were no doubt focused on their members’ best interest, they were immune to influence from the company that may have paid their expenses to attend a conference or an honorarium for speaking at a meeting. The overall process related to patient group submissions has improved, but it clearly needs further improvement.
Frank Gavin, Toronto
............................................
Re Quebec’s New HPV Vaccine Program Divides Experts (Dec. 8): We have expressed concern about a new Quebec health program affecting 80,000 children who are nine years old. The new Quebec human papillomavirus vaccine program is less expensive than the former program, but in our view does not have solid scientific evidence that it will work.
As a group, we have received funding from government and from the manufacturers of both vaccines used in the new HPV vaccine program; any suggestion that our goal is to promote a single manufacturer’s interest is not plausible. Moreover, accepting funding from industry does not mean that we do not tell the truth.
As scientists and advocates, we value and abide by our ethical duty to manage a conflict of personal interest and scholarly duty. Our varied funding sources are not the issue. The real issue is the quality of the existing scientific evidence for the new HPV vaccine program. Such evidence does not justify a cheaper HPV vaccine program that, in our view, will not adequately protect Quebec children from the painful, chronic condition of anogenital warts, and from HPV-related cancer.
Marc Steben, Teresa Norris Zeev Rosberger, HPV Awareness; Montreal
Shopping coercion?
We are perverting the use of the word “loyalty” when it comes to retailers. Coercion, private club, fee-for-access – these are more appropriate descriptors (Retailers Turn To Fee-Based Loyalty Programs In Bid To Keep Customers – Report on Business, Dec. 17).
I have no interest in limiting my shopping options and being bound to a particular retailer by virtue of having given them my money. If they want my business, they can give me good products and service, period.
Hope Smith, Calgary