Prime Minister Justin Trudeau holds a press conference in Paris, France on Oct. 5.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Liberal outlook
Re “Former public safety minister, staff needed time to get ‘comfortable’ with warrant targeting Liberal powerbroker, inquiry hears” (Oct. 9): I’ll sleep so much better knowing that Justin Trudeau’s Liberals and then-public safety minister Bill Blair protect their fellow Liberals more than they do Canadians.
Marty Cutler Toronto
Re “Why Justin Trudeau can’t open the door Canadians have locked” (Oct. 7): I am perplexed at the public’s dislike of our Prime Minister, at least according to recent polling.
Almost everything the Liberal government has done over the past nine years has benefited Canadians, a lot of which is due to the NDP holding its hand to the fire. But nevertheless, progress.
It’s hard to criticize daycare initiatives, pharmacare and a dental plan. Let’s not for a moment think Pierre Poilievre would ever consider these kinds of programs.
The government has been sideswiped by COVID-19, inflation and rising interest rates, which have hurt Canadians. But we live in a free-enterprise economy, and these negative distortions are basically out of the reach of fundamental change by government.
To me, hating Mr. Trudeau is off the mark and an excuse to park one’s inexplicable anger somewhere. Scapegoating comes to mind.
Robert Milan Victoria
Over-under
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: A needed dose of reality from Down Under” (Editorial, Oct. 8): A majority of specialists in Australia charge more than the government reimburses them, leaving patients to pick up the remainder.
Back in the early 2000s, I was working as a doctor in an emergency department in a poor area of Adelaide. When we needed to refer patients to a specialist, we had to consult a list we kept of doctors who did not extra bill. Depending on the specialty, there might have been only a few such doctors, which translated into long waits for patients.
When I returned to Canada, I was grateful not to have to worry about such things.
Joel Lexchin MD Toronto
I forwarded your editorial to my sister, who has lived in Australia for 40-plus years. I got a rocket of a reply, and it was not a ringing endorsement of the Australian model.
She and her husband are upper-middle-class seniors and pay 7,500 Australian dollars a year for private health insurance. He recently needed a hip replacement, which would have cost an additional $10,000 in the private system. He refused and said he would wait for the public system; the fee lowered to $1,000. I guess that is how capitalism works.
My sister volunteers to help disadvantaged citizens obtain utility rebates. One of the main causes for these people to be in financial difficulties is the extra fees paid for specialist medical care.
Would Canadian seniors agree to pay $7,500 a year for private health insurance, yet still be exposed to higher costs? The political calculus does not add up.
Neil Alexander West Vancouver
End user
Re “An Unhealthy Debate: A dearth of data to diagnose health care’s ills” (Editorial, Oct. 7): The people who actually collect and input the data are mostly, if not all, health care providers.
Do they get extra time to input data? Is this part of their added duties?
Were they consulted in the design of the information systems that they must use? How is the data entry integrated into daily work routines? Is the system useful for the people who enter the data?
Information systems depend on accuracy and timeliness of data. We won’t get that without involving the people who do the health care work.
Charlie Lior Toronto
Less is more
Re “The rough state of Canada’s ERs” (Morning Update, Oct. 8): It is implied that since “only 20 per cent of ER patients” are those who do not need to be there, they cannot be meaningful contributors to emergency-room wait times. Wait times in any queue increase inversely to the residual unused capacity.
In ERs, there is rarely any meaningful unused capacity, so average wait times on the order of 24 hours are commonplace. In this context, any success in diverting patients who do not need to be there would yield significant benefits for those who really do need to be there.
Redirections to primary-care physicians or urgent care are therefore a critical element in improving ER access.
David Stanford London, Ont.
Another look
Re “Breast cancer screenings now easier to access at age 40 in most of Canada, though experts warn of more false positives” (Oct. 8): It is good news for women to start getting mammograms in their 40s. It will save hundreds of lives every year. However, I find the term “false positives” misleading and provocative.
Radiologists who are choosing to communicate more accurately are using the term “recall, no cancer.” Recalls are made to get additional images to make sure no cancer is present. It is not that something is being misdiagnosed as cancer.
Even if a radiologist thinks it might be cancer, the actual diagnosis is not made until a pathologist does an evaluation. Rather than a “harm,” recalls are a process to ensure accuracy.
Robin Alter Toronto
Three cheers
Re “Geoffrey Hinton, who warned of AI’s dangers, co-wins Nobel Prize in Physics” (Oct. 9): Given all the negative news we’re blasted with every day about Canada’s failures, I was gratefully cheered by this article on Geoffrey Hinton.
I learned that Dr. Hinton came to Canada because of our social system, multicultural diversity and federal granting system that has a “track record of supporting curiosity-driven basic research.”
Regardless of how artificial intelligence ultimately changes the world, I thank Dr. Hinton for his three-pronged shout-out to Canada.
Lynda Olson Esquimalt, B.C.
Forest for the trees
Re “Author Diana Beresford-Kroeger wants you to plant a tree and save the world” (Arts & Books, Oct. 5): I heartily embrace botanist Diana Beresford-Kroeger’s holistic embrace of plant diversity and her tree-planting regimen. But by my calculations, it is not the case that planting 50 billion trees over six years would have much effect on global climate.The scale required would need to be in the trillion-tree-plus range. Some who have proposed this as a climate mitigation effort, including ecologist Thomas Crowther, have stepped back from it for practical, ecological and biodiversity reasons. Many of them now focus on restoration, not planting. It is estimated that we cut 15 billion trees each year, not counting forest fires and insect infestation. And if we want to steer away from concrete to cut carbon, we would have to partly rely on wood. To be serious about climate change we should look at the triad of energy transition, carbon capture (which can include better forest management) and solar radiation modification.
Robin Collins Ottawa
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