Paying for it
Re “Mark Carney’s biggest economic challenge: Canada’s catastrophic investment deficit” (Report on Business, April 28): There is one sentence attributed to a Royal Bank of Canada report that screams out for questioning: “If Canada is ambitious … investment in the [oil and gas] sector would hit $705-billion.”
However, it’s confirmed consistently that renewables such as wind and solar energy have surpassed fossil fuels for investments. Further, the oil and gas industry can’t find a company willing to build one pipeline, much less two. Nor is it willing to put its own money into a new pipeline, much less carbon capture which is still an unproven technology at the scale needed.
The industry also has a long history of receiving taxpayer dollars, including more than $1-billion to clean up a few of its own well sites. This monstrous liability related to about 170,000 inactive or abandoned well sites continues to grow.
Finally, what is never mentioned when it comes to fossil fuel investments is climate warming.
Ian Follett Calgary
Bank on it
Re “OSFI is where small entrepreneurs’ big dreams go to die” (Report on Business, April 27): Why is the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions so risk-averse in its approach to banking regulation?
It can be easily summed up in the mantra that “there will be no bank failures on my watch,” which has guided successive OSFI superintendents since the failure of two small regional banks in 1985.
Compare that to the United States, where more than 400 banks failed between 2008 and 2012. More recently in 2023, there were three more noticeable U.S. failures: Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank.
While the highly concentrated nature of the Canadian banking sector has created a stable banking structure, the cost is lending practices that are extremely conservative. It is time to “loosen up” and encourage intelligent risk-taking, so that Canadian banks are primed to help finance the desperately needed transformation of the Canadian economy.
Raymond Protti Victoria
Stay or go?
Re “Why Canada’s supply management system is going to disappear” (April 27): For years, it has been clear to this reader that a relatively tiny number of agricultural producers benefit from an increasingly costly and bureaucratic system.
One way or another, it will likely be dismantled. Do we want the manner of that deconstruction to be in Canadian hands or imposed on us?
I like the idea of using the U.S. softwood lumber strategy as a counterbalance to move forward from a system that no longer best serves Canadian consumers. However, it would be hard work.
Does anyone in the dairy lobby think they’re up for it?
Brian Sterling Oakville, Ont.
Were supply management to be abolished, would the the ban on growth hormones need to be repealed to enable our dairy farmers to compete?
The thought is enough to turn one’s stomach and turn hearts and minds in favour of supply management.
Marc Storjohann Brant, Ont.
MAID and mental illness
Re “Catholic leaders urge Carney government to bar MAID access for patients with mental illness” (April 24) and “God in the numbers” (Letters, April 30): Bravo to Cardinal Frank Leo, Archbishop of Toronto, for voicing concern about euthanasia and specifically euthanasia solely for mental illness.
The latter concern is shared by many professionals in psychiatry, psychology, social work, suicide prevention and palliative care, as well as millions of ordinary citizens.
It is not only a religious concern, although Catholic teaching rejects killing as cure. Rather, it advocates for effective treatment for those not terminally ill and good palliative care otherwise.
Regarding Dying with Dignity’s poll: Since it was conducted for a group that I find promotes euthanasia, it is difficult for me to view it without a suspicion of bias.
Having made presentations in many Catholic and other parishes, especially since the legalization of medical assistance in dying, I can testify that when people fully understand the legislation’s implications, they tend to be shocked at what is legally allowed and the breakdown of safeguards.
Moira McQueen Burlington, Ont.
Decisions regarding medical assistance in dying for mental illness should be based on a patient’s mental competency and ability to understand the consequences of their decisions.
While there is no doubt funding for mental health and substance use services should be increased, people living with mental illness should not have their Charter rights compromised.
Steve Lurie CM; former chair, Service Systems Advisory Committee, Mental Health Commission of Canada Toronto
All or nothing?
Re “Banning kids from social media sounds like common sense. The evidence says otherwise” (April 30): While social media bans seem like a logical step to protect children, they can fail to account for nuance and complexity.
Social media and artificial intelligence chatbots are not one and the same. Good policy requires clear definitions and deep understanding of these technologies.
We should remember that, fundamentally, social media is a reflection of real-world behaviour. Banning the online world wouldn’t shield youth from similar threats offline.
Social media bans ostensibly shift punishment for problematic corporate and adult online behaviour onto youth. They are also premised on ethically questionable surveillance such as AI-powered age verification.
In my teaching experience, policing student behaviour rarely translates to greater discernment and judicious use of tech. If anything, it disempowers youth rather than hold perpetrators of harm and corporate greed to account.
Social media may need better guardrails and regulation, but we may also consider that bans are unlikely to be a panacea.
Renée Desjardins Associate professor, Université de Saint-Boniface; adjunct professor, McGill University Winnipeg
The director of research at MediaSmarts advocates for a more complex solution to a complex problem. Meanwhile, the unregulated social experiment that tech bros have been conducting on our youth is having real-world negative impact.
While the issues may be complex, some urgency should be required to mitigate the damage being done. Advocating for more complex solutions rather than a ban is essentially advocating for delay.
Given the list of MediaSmarts’s corporate partners include Google, Meta, TikTok and YouTube, one might question if this opinion toward delay is unbiased and research-based.
Ellis Barefoot Toronto
Two wrongs…
Re “Stealing fruit won’t fix the system” (April 28): “Microlooting” and the New York Times podcast episode titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” remind me of acquaintances who justify cheating on their taxes by claiming the government is ripping us all off anyway.
My response to this convenient rationalization is always: Don’t sink to their level.
Greg DePaco New Westminster, B.C.
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