Skip to main content
letters
Open this photo in gallery:

Chief of the Defence Staff General Jonathan Vance arrives with the first Canadian troops at a UN base in Gao, Mali, on Sunday, June 24, 2018.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com

..................................................................................................................................

2 per cent solution

Canada has been urged by different U.S. administrations and some Canadians to increase its defence spending to 2 per cent of Gross Domestic Product. This would be more understandable presented in absolute numbers.

Canada’s GDP was $1.53-trillion in 2016. Do other countries calculate their GDP in the same manner? Are we comparing apples with apples?

In keeping with 2016 numbers, the DND’s budget was $20.3-billion or 1.3 per cent of GDP. Do other countries report defence numbers on the same basis as Canada? What is included and/or excluded from each set? I hope that the NATO partners have seen eye-to-eye in their comparisons with each other.

In 2016, 2 per cent of GDP defence expenditure would have been $31.2-billion, or $11.1-billion more than budgeted for. Canada’s 2016 budget projected a deficit of $29.4-billion. So what is the answer in view of other national priorities: tax more, increase the deficit – or cut services by $11.1-billion to meet the targeted 2 per cent of GDP?

André Renaud, Chelsea, Que.

Fuelling gun violence

Much of the gun violence in Toronto is between gangs, and a great deal of gangs’ raison d’être is the selling of drugs (The Wrong Way To End Gang Violence – editorial, July 5). The white middle class buys its drugs from these same gangs, and in so doing perpetuates their power and influence. Demand for illicit drugs and the enormous profits made by selling them fuels the gang warfare we are experiencing.

The second factor in the shootings is the ease with which anybody can obtain a gun. All a person has to do is head to Missouri, for example, where it is absurdly easy through private sales to buy a hand gun and smuggle it back over the border.

Richard West, Brockville, Ont.

‘A terrible compromise’

Re What Changes To OHIP+ Tell Us About The Future Of National Pharmacare (July 2): The lack of drug coverage is a gaping hole in Canada’s medicare system. As André Picard notes, there are two basic approaches to fixing that gap: a government pharmacare program, and government drug insurance for people not covered by private drug insurance. Quebec follows the latter private path, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford is moving in that direction.

Research in the Canadian Medical Association Journal warns the private approach used in Quebec may have expanded drug insurance coverage, but at a hefty price: very high per capita drug expenditures, increased out-of-pocket costs, and 8.7 per cent of people skipping doses because of those costs. It is the worst of both worlds, with high costs and inadequate access.

Properly designed, a universal public pharmacare program could save Canadians $7.3-billion a year, with better access to prescription drugs. Mr. Picard speaks optimistically about new approaches and compromise, but the private approach to pharmacare is not new or innovative.

It is a terrible compromise.

Doris Grinspun, CEO, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO)

Hoping for a miracle

As the world is transfixed by the World Cup quarterfinals, it seems to me that the only soccer miracle worth our prayers is unfolding in Thailand (Thai Soccer Team Gets Diving Lessons As Rescuers Prepare To Get Them Out Of Cave – July 5).

A. Blair Sutherland, Ottawa

‘Negative interaction’

Re Mr. Trudeau’s ‘Negative Interaction’ (July 4): Justin Trudeau has been quoted as saying, “I remember that day in Creston well … I had a good day that day. I don’t remember any negative interactions that day at all.”

Perhaps that was because he was the alleged “handler” and not the “handled”?

Paul C. Bennett, Richmond Hill, Ont.

.......................................................................

There is more than a whiff of schadenfreude in the lustful embrace of this story by the PM’s detractors. After all, isn’t this just comeuppance for Justin Trudeau’s summary political executions of caucus members for alleged sexual misconduct?

Let’s be clear. Justin Trudeau was eight years away from elected office when the alleged behaviour would have occurred. Since then, it has not been the subject of a criminal complaint or civil proceedings. The real story here may be about hypocrisy and double standards, as Margaret Wente says. But not just Mr. Trudeau’s.

What about the hypocrisy and double standards of the Prime Minister’s detractors who, without buying into his “always believe the victim” approach, will continue to believe unverified allegations about him, regardless of what he says from here on in, or whether the alleged victim ever utters another word?

Those willing to take up Ms. Wente’s invitation, hands up. You know who you are.

Howard Greenfield, Montreal

.......................................................................

Justin Trudeau has established a “zero tolerance” standard for the rest of us that disregards the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” and that demands we accept the word of the accuser, even if neither the name of the accuser nor the accusation itself is identified. Mr. Trudeau ruined the career of two or more of his caucus members on just that basis – but he appears to expect that the same standard of accountability will not apply to him.

Peter Watson, Edmonton

.......................................................................

“I remember that day in Creston well ... I had a good day that day. I don’t remember any negative interactions that day at all.” The calculation behind this statement seems obvious: It is better to roll the dice and hope that the accuser’s vagueness and anonymity assuages his supporters, than to set an example for young boys across Canada by atoning for his alleged past mistakes.

With the latter, presumably, he risks not being forgiven by his supporters (never mind his accuser) in time for the next election. This assumes, of course, that the accuser is to be taken at her word – something the Prime Minister has urged us always to do.

If so, then her account of his “apology” in an accusatory editorial written shortly after is even more concerning: “I’m sorry, if I had known you were reporting for a national paper, I never would have been so forward.”

The Prime Minister’s contention that he does not remember the “negative interaction” or apologizing for his forwardness (even though he was called out in a newspaper for it at the time) appears exceedingly unlikely …

Alykhan Pabani, Toronto

.......................................................................

For someone who “[doesn’t] much care what Mr. Trudeau did at a beerfest back in 2000,” Margaret Wente seems to be poking quite assiduously among cold ashes to stir up a fire. I find the Prime Minister’s position fully explained with his reported reply.

Mr. Trudeau’s closure of the topic recalls the great British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, who tied off a similar pointless inquiry with: “I never deny. I never contradict. I sometimes forget.”

W. E. Hildreth, Toronto

Interact with The Globe