The Prime Minister of Canada's official residence at 24 Sussex Dr. is seen in Ottawa, on Friday.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Canadian way
Re “Immigration Department faces almost 300 court challenges over denial of asylum hearings” (June 25): When the first Trump administration tightened U.S. immigration enforcement, Canada’s prime minister publicly declared that Canada welcomed newcomers “with open arms.”
For critics, this marked the beginning of a more permissive approach, one they argue contributed to growing challenges around border management, public safety and social cohesion. In the years since, many Canadians have felt that the systems they once trusted have weakened, and the balance between compassion and responsibility has tilted too far.
As the country continues to debate immigration, security and national identity, the central question remains: How do we preserve Canada’s tradition of openness while ensuring that the safety, stability and well‑being of Canadians remain at the forefront?
The path forward requires honest reflection, practical policy and a renewed commitment to the values that once made Canadians feel confident in the future of their country.
Anas Khan Beaumont, Alta.
If you build it…
Re “Ottawa launching competition to find firm to rebuild 24 Sussex” (June 26): Pierre Poilievre should focus on substantive criticism of the government, rather than taking cheap shots at a long-overdue national project. Restoring or rebuilding 24 Sussex has bipartisan support, including from Stephen Harper and Jean Chrétien and likely from most Canadians.
Mr. Poilievre’s dismissive, attack-dog rhetoric only reinforces why he may never become a resident of 24 Sussex.
Dale Mills Guelph, Ont.
Pierre Poilievre had said that he doesn’t think about 24 Sussex at all, but he probably should if he wants to one day become prime minister.
24 Sussex has been turned into a political football, which it never should have been. The White House, 10 Downing and other world leaders’ residences are not political, in the sense that it’s never about the politician, it’s about the home belonging to and representing a country.
For some odd and typically Canadian reason, the country lost its way with 24 Sussex. No matter what economic strata one may find themselves in, it should be seen as positive to be on the journey of once again establishing a Prime Minister’s residence – not merely a cottage – that best represents Canada on the world stage and restores Canadian pride.
Douglas Cornish Ottawa
Slow down
Re “Asia crucial to Canada’s diversification from U.S., energy industry report says” (Report on Business, June 26) and “Canada sees opportunity to further grow LNG and food exports to Asia” (Report on Business, June 27): Here in Northern British Columbia, we watch in dismay as LNG Canada pushes toward Phase 2, while Phase 1 has been plagued by chronic malfunctions. David Eby and Mark Carney should insist that current operational problems are corrected before further expanding.
While the BC NDP and federal Liberals seem to have left their environmental credentials at the door to chase short-term revenue, those of us in the Kitimat-Terrace airshed simply want the world-class facility we were promised. Fast-tracking this project would abandon core Canadian values of stewardship and climate accountability.
Meanwhile Phase 1’s industrial stack, much like the Dark Tower in The Lord of the Rings, roars and belches on our doorsteps while distant politicians remain insulated from the physical price we pay to pad corporate and government balance sheets.
Charles Claus Terrace, B.C.
Nuclear plans
Re “Federal plan aims to boost nuclear sector with up to 10 new reactors, expand international footprint” (June 22): Nuclear power is by far one of the most expensive ways to provide power. Solar and wind are some of the most affordable sources of power, and the latest advances in energy storage mean renewables are more reliable.
The buildout time for new nuclear facilities can be a decade or more, and the history of nuclear builds is littered with delays and cost overruns. Buildouts for renewables can often be months, not years.
Much of the planet is transitioning to renewables: Reports highlight Denmark generating 88 per cent of power from renewables; China installing thousands of megawatts of solar power per day; Pakistan buying huge amounts of Chinese solar panels; California meeting more than half of electricity needs with renewables; the list goes on.
A nuclear renaissance should not be the solution to power our future.
Carol Essex Toronto
In 1979, at age 13, my science fair project compared Canada’s Candu reactor to the U.S. breeder reactor. I concluded Candu was safer and I still support nuclear’s low-carbon potential.
But history repeats. Ontario Hydro’s 1999 collapse under nuclear debt left ratepayers footing the bill to this day. Thus I am concerned about the federal government’s nuclear renaissance.
New analysis by Power Advisory reveals Ontario’s planned nuclear expansion would cost $221-billion by 2050, while a renewable pathway would clock in at $104-billion and a savings of $117-billion. That is a tab ratepayers cannot afford to ignore.
Nuclear is not the villain, but in Canada it is the expensive hero we cannot keep casting. Let’s invest in solutions that won’t break the bank – or our grandchildren’s piggy banks.
Cathy Orlando Sudbury
Re “Ontario First Nation says nuclear waste project must meet its criteria even if fast-tracked” (June 26): The plan to handle stores of nuclear waste at a First Nation site near Ignace, Ont., is another example to me of the government’s magical thinking.
As a resident of Northern Ontario east of Lake Superior, I am also concerned by the transport of nuclear materials, by truck or rail, from where they are currently stored across the province. Those trucks will probably move through my community year-round, on roads not built for managing nuclear exposure.
So many parts of this plan don’t make sense to me. That one old saw is true in every sense here: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.
Martha Gould North Bay, Ont.
Back to school
Re “Using a different approach, Halton District School Board succeeds in raising math scores” (June 22): As a Milton District High School graduate of 1983 who suffered through “sage on the stage” math classes, and who begged my Grade 13 math teacher to please, please, please raise my 49-per-cent average to a passing grade so I could graduate (thanks to Mr. Leonard!), I would like to know if Halton District School Board would permit a 62-year-old to retake math from grades 9 to 12.
I am confident I would actually excel this time around with updated methods, and perhaps even lose my lifelong math phobia.
Christine McAuley 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