Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre at a news conference in Ottawa, on Monday.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Look who’s back
Re “Poilievre’s cheap shots at Carney’s business ties are unfounded and unhinged” (Report on Business, July 21): I suppose it’s not surprising that professional politician Pierre Poilievre can’t get his head around making room in politics for a highly successful businessman like Mark Carney.
For all his self-celebrated enthusiasm for the private sector and ever freer enterprise, it is evident to me that Mr. Poilievre believes those with real-life experience in the rigours of that sector have no place in bringing this urgently required expertise into public life. Like Mr. Poilievre, Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper were also professional politicians who had no meaningful experience in the private sector, the fruits of which I see evident in the multiple economic challenges confronting the current government.
At this critical time in our history, Canada needs more in public life from those who have made a mark in the private sector – and fewer of those who are satisfied to call politics their only career.
Terrence Downey Calgary
I am shocked – shocked – that Pierre Poilievre would stoop to cynical attack-dog tactics.
Surely this is not the same amicable, charming former member for Carleton who so many Canadians have come to know and admire?
Nigel Smith Toronto
Sunk costs
Re “How should Canada rearm itself? Fix aging bases, buy submarines, air-defence systems, experts say” (July 21): I’m not an expert on defence, but retired general Wayne Eyre ticked all the boxes for me.
Can Canada reform military procurement and do something this bold? Is the government listening?
Bryan McConachy West Vancouver
Buying 12 diesel-electric submarines would be a strategic mistake and another boondoggle, such as the used diesel-electric subs acquired from Britain in 1998.
Nuclear subs have longer underway times compared to time in port for maintenance. We should have a number of them complemented by diesel-electric subs.
Canada has one of the largest coastlines in the world and a northern one that is mostly frozen in winter. Subs should be capable of patrolling this large area, as well as being deployed overseas for strategic purposes and acting as naval escorts to support allied aircraft carriers.
Diesel-electric subs are simply not capable of fulfilling all of these roles. They cannot stay submerged for nearly as long as nuclear subs, making them vulnerable. Australia came to that conclusion years ago and is instead acquiring three Virginia-class nuclear subs.
If we had the coastline of Sweden or Germany, diesel-electric subs might be sufficient.
David Bell Toronto
I don’t claim to know much about submarines.
The extent of my knowledge is a one-hour tour of a sub from the Second World War. I was amazed that people could live and work in such close quarters for weeks or months at a time.
According to retired general Wayne Eyre, the cost of a new sub is $10-billion, roughly equal to the cost of dozens of new F-35 fighter jets. Surely for $10-billion, a modern sub would not have to spend months or years in long-term maintenance like the ones bought from Britain in 1998.
I don’t really know, but one would expect a $10-billion piece of military hardware to work efficiently with regular short-term maintenance.
Thomas McInnis Toronto
Canadian surface vessels and aircraft are crucial for defence, surveillance, policing and search and rescue. They are also being called upon to supply Northern communities with many services.
Submarines are for attack and retaliation. The day may come when we do have to focus on retaliation, but not now.
If we did have a dozen new subs, who would staff them? We are finding it difficult to attract young people for jobs above water. Who is going to want to spend their work life underwater?
Historically, our military has always had a limited budget. These defence dollars should be spent on areas of immediate need.
Our present focus on nationalism may not last long. Concerns about social services, the environment and the cost of living may once again be the focus of Canadians.
Ken Stock Port Hope, Ont.
Whether the enormous investment Canada seems determined to make in new military equipment makes Canadians or anyone else more secure remains to be seen. If we’re going to do this, though, we should be clear about the effects.
One is that when countries build up defence industries, they come under heavy pressure to export the equipment produced. Some will say Canada should export more of everything.
However, greater economic dependency on arms exports stands to further erode Canada’s traditional role as a peacemaker that uses diplomacy and soft power to achieve its foreign goals. The coming expansion of military industries should be accompanied by a thoroughgoing review of Canadian arms export policy.
Domestic industry needs should be balanced with Canada’s ability to play a constructive role in global diplomacy.
John Lamb Antigonish County, N.S.
Burning up
Re “Smoke: The new reality in summertime” (Editorial, July 21): Kudos for increasing public awareness of this threat to Canadians’ long-term health.
Most Canadians breathe air which already exceeds the evidence-based World Health Organization guideline: The average annual exposure to airborne fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, should not exceed five micrograms per cubic metre. Studies confirm that excess mortality from ischemic heart diseases, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other such conditions soar dramatically above that limit.
What is insufficiently understood is that PM2.5 is the most damaging of the six pollutants averaged in the air quality index; that it is a year-round problem (our cumulative exposure from mostly U.S. industrial emissions far exceeds that from wildfire smoke); that we can easily keep our exposures well under the limit through HEPA indoor filtration and N95 masks when outdoors on the worst-polluted days.
Since we are mostly powerless to make the problem go away, better awareness is the next-best preventative.
Ron Hartling Kingston
Having worked in weather, air quality and wildland fire over my career, responses to the Jasper-commissioned report prompt me to share some thoughts on the importance of after action reviews.
To be most useful, an AAR shouldn’t primarily serve as a vehicle for accolades or to protect egos. It also shouldn’t draw conclusions before the review process is complete.
It is a crucial tool for extracting value from an event, helping us prepare better for the future. It aims to answer three key questions: What do we want to repeat? How can we be better prepared? What can we improve?
I believe this particular report stands as a model AAR. Kudos are due to Jasper and the consultants they engaged.
It opens doors for Jasper, other municipalities and all emergency response agencies, paving the way for even better preparedness and execution when a wildfire or other hazard next threatens.
Brian Wiens Research manager, Canada Wildfire; Grimsby, Ont.
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