Former prime minister Stephen Harper delivers the keynote address at a conference on March 22 in Ottawa.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Say little
Re “Stephen Harper says Pierre Poilievre should save his policy platform for federal election” (March 23): What Stephen Harper seems to really mean is that Pierre Poilievre should go silent until the next election is over, just like he did.
That way, Mr. Poilievre wouldn’t be accountable for any particular positions and could plow ahead with unpalatable decisions, all with a clear conscience. The chance of him becoming prime minister in the first place would also rise considerably.
I hope Canadian voters don’t have short memories.
Brenda Dunbar Waterloo, Ont.
Our share
Re “Budget 2023: Canada’s indefensible military spending” (Editorial, March 23): While unpleasant, we should acknowledge that Canadians have dined out on the backs of U.S. taxpayers since the 1960s. We now face a stark choice: Selfishly continue down this path, or contribute our fair share to the collective defence of liberal democracy. Like these pages, I strongly believe the latter is the moral and practical choice.
It is the government’s role to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces is properly funded. However, all too frequently the reaction to a child enlisting is, “Why would they do that?” This reflects a broader cultural issue, one that can be addressed by increasing awareness and expressing support for CAF members.
While making a donation to the CAF annual run, writing our MPs regarding CAF pay and housing issues or attending a Remembrance Day ceremony may seem insignificant, collectively these actions elevate our awareness of and respect for our military.
Support our troops.
Michael Colborne Toronto
Guns before butter. You argue that we should increase our defence spending, on a percentage GDP basis, to be more in line with other NATO members. But what do we cut to do so?
Less spending on Indigenous issues, health care, mental health, the environment, homelessness, drug prevention, immigration support? I could go on, as the list is long.
Focusing our present defence spending on pertinent areas might be a better approach.
David Enns Cornwall, Ont.
Canada’s lack of sufficient defence funding should be seen as a long-standing international embarrassment, for which all political parties are to blame. Canadians should realize that, in the guns-versus-butter debate, insufficient funding for guns puts at risk the delivery of independent and sufficient butter.
Richard Braiden London, Ont.
DIY
Re “Budget 2023: Ottawa must support child care” (Editorial, March 21): Why not transfer tax points for child care as well (”Budget 2023: Ottawa should give provinces more tax room, not a blank cheque, for health care” – Editorial, March 22)? Any hybrid system would be a hot potato, with all governments tossing around blame for any failures.
Provinces should get child care the same way Quebec did: By paying for it themselves without federal involvement.
Liam Morland Waterloo, Ont.
Come down
Re “Health Minister’s behaviour on drug-price reforms led to resignations, ex-board member says” (March 21): It seems evident that the Health Minister justifiably lacked confidence in the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board.
I have some awareness of how their function impaired patient access to needed medications for rare disorders such as cystic fibrosis, thus causing considerable risk to the lives of patients with that and other diseases. Such medications are expensive, perhaps excessively so, but contexts such as the length of development, the small number in target populations and the costs of gaining approval should also be considered.
It is my understanding that the board can take rather inflexible positions on drug pricing, and patient advocacy groups are perceived to be supporting Big Pharma. I am not an agent of the pharmaceutical industry, but rather a parent of a person with cystic fibrosis, who desperately needs certain medications in order to live.
Price can be negotiated if both sides are flexible on entering the process.
Rod MacLeod MD, Toronto
Long-term needs
Re “A Hamilton nursing home lost power for more than 13 hours. Internal documents show it wasn’t an isolated incident” (March 20): My brother and I had a tour of Blackadar Continuing Care Centre in 2012, when looking for a home for our father. It was convenient and “often has space available.”
We were very upset by the conditions. Residents were often four in a room. We saw many of them lined up in the hall, waiting for an elevator to take them to lunch.
It felt dark and dismal and joyless. It still upsets me that some people have nowhere else to go.
Fortunately for our family, our father was able to wait and spent six contented years at a home only a short distance away from Blackadar. The cost was the same.
It is appalling to me that Blackadar is still in this condition, and even more appalling that regulatory bodies have allowed it to continue.
How many other homes are in this condition?
Patricia Hanley MacLeod Toronto
Consider the Alberta Auditor-General’s recent report on COVID-19 in continuing-care facilities. For-profit operators in Calgary and Edmonton supplied 44 per cent of beds, but accounted for 52 per cent of resident COVID-19 cases and 50 per cent of deaths.
Non-profit operators in the two cities managed 36 per cent of beds, accounting for 34 per cent of resident COVID-19 cases and 33 per cent of deaths. In other words, residents in for-profit facilities faced a disproportionately higher risk of infection and death than if they lived in non-profit facilities.
Should families choose a facility based on ownership alone? Alberta Health Services considered for-profit ownership a risk factor for COVID-19.
The bigger issue should be that we are overlooking the potential benefits of more non-profits in continuing care and health care at large. I believe we’d be better off if non-profits had a bigger role and voice.
Frank Johnston Calgary
No thanks
Re “James Reimer is the bad guy so that the NHL can be on every side” (Sports, March 20): As teams and players opt out of Pride night activities, the National Hockey League should rethink its inclusivity experiment.
It’s a nice idea that seems to have devolved into a forum for homophobia and an opportunity for the league just to sell some hats and jerseys. “Hockey ain’t for everyone,” the NHL seems to be saying, “but will you buy our Pride collection anyway?”
It’s been great having a show of support from the NHL and most of its stars. But with players co-opting Pride nights to publicly reject inclusivity, it feels more like a platform for microaggression than celebration.
Christopher Gudgeon 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