![]() Re: Don’t Tread On Indiana, John Robson, April 7. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Further, expensive drugs, even if approved, may be covered in one province but not another. Without that approval, or DIN, private insurance companies and even Trillium refuse to cover the often-massive costs. Many highly expensive yet life-saving drugs do not have Health Canada approval either because the necessary trials have not yet been completed or because the diseases they treat are so rare that drug companies have no incentive to invest in Canadian approval even though the drug may already be approved in the U.S. Re: Pharmacare: Nice Idea In Theory, But …, editorial, April 7. In reality, the global movement on climate change is still being perpetuated by the same bunch of doomsayers, and their biggest worry is that ordinary folks are starting to wise up to this money-making charade that will go down as the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the North American public. The idea that it will fight climate change is ludicrous, it will just line government coffers. We don’t need another tax and that is just what this carbon scam is going to be. Why didn’t Mike Duffy just go get a loan at Money Mart? It would have saved everybody a lot of trouble. The jury is still out on whether his journey up Parliament Hill will be judged more slippery than the trip down. The country is about to get that deserving insight not from Duff, the informed inside-Ottawa reporter, but from a perturbed, often petulant (and possibly convicted) Canadian senator. Guilty or not of the charges against him, and whether he’s proven a political pawn or a public-purse predator, Mike Duffy is about to give the country a shocking glimpse behind the velvet curtain that separates the hidden workings of high office from those who unknowingly fund its arcane employment practices. Re: The Trial During Which All Becomes Clear, Andrew Coyne, April 7. Please try again Article content Duffian insights The next issue of NP Platformed will soon be in your inbox. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. ![]() Smadar Meiri, Thornhill, Ont.Ī welcome email is on its way. No doubt, fashionable styles pass but memorable feelings do not. ![]() Perhaps she perceived shin-high boots worn with my printed Paisley woolen skirt, bought four to five years previously at Saks Fifth Avenue on sale, as attributing me to being a JAP - Jewish American Princess - which was further from the truth. Atwood views my attire and coldly, abruptly signs the book as if she’s doing me a favour - no smile or thank you. Atwood’s confession at the Victoria & Albert Museum “that she judged women on what they wore” explains my feeling of being offended back in 1981 upon signing her book, Bodily Harm, (ironically, a book intertwined with a fashion theme) when I was a University of Toronto student. Atwood’s comments remind me of art history professors’ lectures making observational comparisons of motifs which were stretched just to make a point. There are no stark differences in the impeccable dress styles between the late Princess Diana and the Duchess of Cambridge. Margaret Atwood’s criticism of the Duchess of Cambridge’s unfashionable style is unwarranted. Activate your Online Access Now Article content If you are a Home delivery print subscriber, unlimited online access is included in your subscription. Manage Print Subscription / Tax Receipt.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |