A cover-up of changes
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s new omnibus bill includes alterations to the rights of unions, employment insurance, workplace safety, immigration policy, Supreme Court appointments, veterans affairs and more [“Lest we forget,” November 6]. These are very important changes that need the appropriate amount of time to be debated and not buried among a myriad of unrelated issues.
For a government that advertises its primary focus to be jobs and a primary means of supplying jobs is to fast track industry applications, I am suspicious as to the reasons behind the alterations to the hard-fought rights in the Canadian workplace.
How will reducing workplace safety standards and allowing employers to fire workers who refuse to work in unsafe conditions benefit Canadians? Will the employer then be able to hire immigrant workers if Canadians refuse to work under these conditions? We already have the situation wherein industry is going abroad to recruit a skilled workforce unavailable in Canada. With the proposed changes, will we have the same situation if workers abroad are willing to work in conditions that our governments have deemed to be unsafe in the past?
I am hoping there will be some information in the media from people representing our workforces that will calm my suspicions, please.
Leslie Goresky
Van Anda, Texada Island
Remove barriers to cancer prevention
Recently we had a member of our family diagnosed with prostate cancer [“Ready set mo,” November 6]. As a cancer survivor I contacted my two sons (one 53 and the other 54) advising them both to immediately have a PSA (prostate-specific antigen) test done if they hadn’t already done so. Often it is in this age group when health issues start to appear.
My youngest son told me his general practitioner had already refused him for the past two years to do a PSA. However, this year my son insisted and was advised if he wanted a PSA done he would have to pay $65 for it. So he paid for what should have been done as a routine test.
Men are often reluctant to have health issues addressed and charging for a routine test is definitely not conducive to positive action. Surely the health system can devise a program where at the age of 45 to 50 an initial PSA is done. This would give a number to their markers and, if changes start occurring, action can be taken in adequate time. This would not only save money treating prostate cancer but also spare our men and families unnecessary anguish—possibly lives as well.
I hope consideration will be given toward more action for our men, beyond just growing a mustache for Movember.
Delores G. Pfister
Glacier Street
