Healthcare workers walk through the hallway as staff care for patients suffering from COVID-19 at Humber River Hospital's Intensive Care Unit, in Toronto, on April 28, 2021.COLE BURSTON/AFP/Getty Images
Nursing shift
Re “Thousands of foreign-trained nurses can now practise in Canada as provinces change licensing rules” (May 10): While many of us are heaving a sigh of relief at the news of thousands of new nurses being registered for practice, it begs a question: Why does Canada need to rely on poaching nurses from other jurisdictions, especially developing countries that have trained them at their own cost? This is a short-term measure that does not address the underlying issues that have caused our shortages: inadequate pay, overwork, stress and lack of understanding of the work-life balance needed to enable longevity in any profession.
Give our nurses decent pay and working conditions and stop this reliance on stopgap measures.
Geraint Lewis, MD Ottawa
Gun talk
Re “Under the gun” (Letters, May 8): Some letters published recently indicate a limited understanding of the complexities and regional differences in Canadian firearm culture. Semi-automatic firearms are considered necessary for many types of hunting, pest control, sport and even wilderness protection in many places. The proposed ban attracted outrage in part because it did not consider those needs. Those impacted know their own needs; that others don’t (or won’t) listen is not a sufficient reason for a ban.
Guns are strictly controlled in Canada. Magazines above five rounds are generally prohibited. “Assault-style” is a marketing term, not a technical one. But to the point: As I wrote in a brief for the House of Commons standing committee on public safety and national security, there is no good research evidence that prohibiting these guns will improve public safety in Canada. To improve public safety, spend money on useful crime-prevention measures rather than imposing arbitrary bans. It’s that simple.
Tim Thurley Yellowknife, NWT
Ally overload?
Re “Canada seeks entry into AUKUS alliance to help keep China in check” (Online, May 8): Canada’s ability to develop a semblance of a home ground foreign policy is melting in front of our own eyes. The Globe and Mail reporting that Canada seeks entry into the AUKUS security alliance with Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States sounds like the end of any ambition we may have had to hear in international affairs an autonomous tone that would reflect what might be called a genuine note of Canadian foreign policy.
Canada is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing partnership, NATO and NORAD. We also already belong happily to the exclusive international Group of Seven (G7) and – less happily now that it is not run by Western countries – to the Group of 20 (G20). Do we really need now to join yet another alliance?
Marc Faguy, former Canadian diplomat Ottawa
Torpedoing subs
Re “Canada needs to chart a clear course for increased defence spending” (Editorial, May 4): In what realistic scenario would Canada having submarines make any difference? In a conflict big enough for submarines to matter, we can call on our NATO allies. Submarines from the United States, Britain and France are, in effect, part of our fleet.
Canada could instead make outsized contributions elsewhere that would be more useful to an all-of-NATO effort in war, and also in peacetime, doing useful work for Canadians and allies in meeting the kind of lower-grade but real threats we already see from China and Russia.
We can expand our intelligence-gathering and cyber-security efforts. We can harden our electrical grids against nuclear electromagnetic pulses. We could develop airships to fly weeks-long missions over the Arctic as radar and missile platforms. Instead of submarines, we could deploy whole fleets of long-range underwater drones that could monitor hundreds of vessels at once in our waters. We could build underwater listening stations and torpedo bunkers.
What actual use can a submarine serve?
Dieter Heinrich Owen Sound, Ont.
Gas matters
Re “Solar power, gas capture offer ways to repurpose landfills and other brownfields” (Report on Business, May 9): I’m all for solar power, even on top of landfills. But chasing landfill methane emissions as a source of renewable natural gas (RNG) is a mug’s game. Methane is the second-largest greenhouse gas (GHG) driving global warming, after carbon dioxide. Landfills are classified as “non-point” sources of GHGs; this makes reliable measurement of their emissions, either captured as RNG or escaped as fugitive emissions, problematic. Investing billions in RNG might make economic sense but it does not make sense as strategy to address global warming. In the case of landfills, what it is doing is competing with recycling and waste reduction efforts while perpetuating the need for landfilling more biodegradable waste. This waste should be going to municipal composting and related diversion efforts.
Chris Gates Quinte West, Ont.
Leveraging LNG
Re “Mexico poised to enter global liquefied natural gas industry and surpass Canada” (Report on Business, May 9): Countries like Mexico, the U.S. and Australia are forging ahead with LNG resource and export development while Canada remains hamstrung. It is deeply frustrating that ideologically driven politicians, environmentalists and others continue to hold back Canada’s potential to responsibly leverage this important transition fuel, while others around the world forge ahead.
When will Canadians realize that – despite good intentions – holding ourselves back only hurts us? LNG is a powerful, cleaner solution. Let’s put it to work.
Randall Mang Sidney, B.C.
Legal eagle
Re “Justice Horace Krever, known for his unwavering principles, headed two high-profile public inquiries” (Obituary, May 8): Horace Krever would have been a young law professor at University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law when I took his first-year civil procedure course in 1967. I remember little about civil procedure from his course, perhaps because he did not spend much time teaching it. What he did spend time on was the various ethical issues a lawyer can encounter, and how we might deal with them. Fifty-six years later I now believe the legal profession could have benefited from many more teachers like Horace Krever.
W. Peter Murray Caledonia, Ont.
Crossroad blues
Re “Winnipeg rethinks Portage and Main intersection, but not the barriers” (May 8): As a Winnipegger-in-exile and frequent visitor to my hometown, I sympathize with Gail Asper’s anger regarding the untenable configuration of this corner for pedestrian traffic.
On every visit, I encounter puzzled pedestrians there, many of them locals, in need of help in navigating from one side to another. Moreover, the complete devotion to cars by Winnipeg’s civic leaders has resulted in a downtown area filled with parking lots, as well as streets devoid of human activity.
Let’s hope that progressive voices in the city are able to restore the corner of Portage and Main to its former glory.
Brian Bursten Toronto
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