Skip to main content
letters

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

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

To stop a missile

Re Canada, And The Need To Stop A Missile (Jan. 17): Your editorialists' thinking appears to be even wilder than the North Korean despot's.

In essence, goes your argument, this nuclearized (self-indulgent, narcissistic, tyrannical etc. but not mad) Cold War relic known as Kim Jong-un wouldn't fathom that any attack on some "demonstration target" in North America (you cite Canada) would not only invite certain Armageddon by the very folk he would intimidate, the Americans, but justify it.

Or, concerning posited defects of ballistic guidance, that a dead-centre shot at the U.S. coast (San Francisco) would be attempted, even if Vancouver might be hit instead – 1,279 kilometres north!

The post-Cold War paradigm no longer sees one, but three and more "exceptional powers" arising on the world stage, which presents not only risks for Canada but also opportunities.

Now that U.S. positioning on the North American trade file makes it clear that Canada is not a continental partner at all, but a rival, all our strategic relationships should be informed and adjusted accordingly.

L.W. Naylor, Stratford, Ont.

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

Your editorial reminded me of the 1950s American "duck and hide" directive. We lived near San Francisco then, and while our frightened classmates practised ducking and hiding from anticipated Russian bombs, my brothers and I tossed around a softball out on the playing field. My wise dad had made it known to the principal that his children would not participate in such fear-mongering exercises. (Thanks, dad.)

Canada would do well to direct the many billions that missile defence would cost toward diplomatic efforts – like tossing around a softball to start.

Carol Taylor, Kelowna, B.C.

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

Faith, health care

Re Fight For Death (Jan. 13): A letter writer rightly points out the misnomer "faith based" health care. Care in health institutions is informed by science, business, ethics, faith and politics. It is never only science-based or faith-based. Alas, much of what passed for science is funded by profit-based Big Pharma.

Your correspondent recommends the elimination of faith-informed health care in favour of state-run institutions. Let Canadians debate and decide if a state monopoly on health-care delivery is a good idea.

The success of the Canadian democratic experiment was founded on a fine balance of French and English, and Protestant and Catholic.

Our failures have been rooted in the erasure of communities (residential schools, internment camps). It seems the totalitarian impulse runs deep within each of us. The persecution of a teaching assistant at Wilfrid Laurier University, the attacks on Canadian icon Margaret Atwood, our federal government's heavy-handed forced assent to reproductive rights are troubling examples of this impulse.

If Canada is to survive another 150 years, we must foster creative tension, compromise and vigorous debate. National security, women's rights and irremediable suffering are catch phrases that can censor debate and permit one part of our community to oppress another.

Pretending that complex social and political issues have been decided builds unhelpful pressure among groups whose views are being suppressed or ignored. Your correspondent's right to speak his mind, my right to reply and the very principle of a free press hang in the balance.

Larry Reynolds, MD, Winnipeg

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

That's a lot of bread

Re Big Six Among Banks Accused Of Rigging Rate Benchmark (Report on Business, Jan. 16): Now that Loblaw has set the precedent, I hope the Canadian banks allegedly colluding in rate-fixing the Canadian Dollar Offered Rate (CDOR) will shortly be inspired to offer compensation to those of us who used their services between 2007-14.

But this time, I expect a $25K gift card, as considerably larger amounts of bread no doubt would have been involved.

Chris Clark, Uxbridge, Ont.

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

Flood risk's high ground

Re How We Can Better Mitigate Flood Risk (Report on Business, Jan. 16): Legislation in all 13 Canadian jurisdictions is clear that where insurance was "available," government assistance can't be sought by residential property owners with flood damage.

While it is correct that the insurance approach is inconsistent, using the term "flood insurance" can be misleading. The insurance offered in Canada is for "overland flooding." Simply put, most insurance products provide coverage for water inundation (i.e. when water accumulates where it normally doesn't and damages property), but they specifically exclude "flood," which is the overflowing of a natural body of water such as a river, stream, lake or ocean.

The introduction of insurance providing some degree of coverage may further confuse the public and inadvertently take away the ability of residential property owners to make claims for disaster assistance. It may also result in a situation where provincial governments defy their own legislation and offer financial aid to flood victims at the expense of prudent citizens who bought coverage, and/or didn't choose to live in flood-prone areas.

Canada is the only G7 country that doesn't have a plan involving government participating in flood insurance for residential property owners. I agree that the national conversation on flood risk should continue, however, the best risk management for flood is site selection.

Property developers and municipal governments need to be more diligent when choosing what sites to develop, and Canadians need to consider flood risk when choosing where to live.

Karen MacWilliam, independent risk management and insurance consultant, Wolfville, N.S.

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

Weighing in on Trump

Never mind anything else, why does Donald Trump think any Norwegian would want to leave what is generally recognized as one of the most livable countries on the planet to emigrate to the Excited States of America, which is well down on that list, and where life expectancy continues to decrease.

Maybe the flow of immigrants should be the other way round. At least for the next three years.

Gordon Salisbury, Mississauga

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

Like so much other information on the man in the White House, Donald Trump's medical exam is a puzzle to me. Mr. Trump is five inches taller than I am. I fit a size 34 waist (he certainly does not) and I don't have a large mass overhanging my belt. Yet, at 239 pounds, he weighs only 32 pounds more than I do?

Talk about tipping the scales …

Ken Neros, Vancouver

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

Did Donald Trump stand on tip-toe to reach 6 foot 3? At the claimed 239 pounds, it's one way to bring down his BMI. No wonder the Girthers are skeptical.

Nancy Young-Jones, Halifax

Interact with The Globe