1 Bloor West under construction as seen from Yonge St. in downtown Toronto on June 12.Abhijit Alka Anil/The Globe and Mail
Speak up
Re “We are in perilous times, yet Canada is silent on the proliferation of nuclear weapons” (June 27): Russia threatens nuclear use to keep NATO out of war in Ukraine, and NATO heeds that warning. Both sides know that a direct conflict between them carries the untenable risk of all-out nuclear war.
But the risk of escalation through error or miscalculation remains high. As illustrated, the United States and NATO could take immediate unilateral steps to significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, including pledges of no first use and the removal of all nuclear weapons from high-alert status.
Instead, they increase reliance on weapons they know they cannot use, thereby increasing the risk of their use. And Canada is silent.
Peggy Mason Former Canadian ambassador for disarmament, United Nations; president, Rideau Institute; Ottawa
The urgency expressed here is palpable.
Canadian civil society and many municipal governments are showing support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Yet the federal government did not even show up as an observer when the 70 party states met this year and discussed the catastrophic humanitarian impact of these weapons.
Where is Canada? Now is the time to find its way back to the table.
Debbie Grisdale Ottawa
Much thanks to contributors Ernie Regehr and Douglas Roche, who have spent decades trying to wake us all up to this alarming issue.
Canada refuses to join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Why? We deserve an answer from the Prime Minister.
Are we so focused on petty (in comparison) domestic problems that we don’t notice the big ones – such as survival?
Barbara Jenks Victoria
Not so much
Re “Stop it with the class-war rhetoric to sell a capital-gains tax hike” (Report on Business, June 26): Criticism of the tax-inclusion rate increasing from 50 per cent to 67 per cent of capital gains will likely get little sympathy from those whose earnings are not one-half, nor two-thirds, but 100-per-cent taxable.
By all means let’s keep tax rates low for working people, but let’s challenge preferential policies that redistribute income upward. The increased capital-gains inclusion rate should affect a minority of the most affluent Canadians, and should be welcomed as a step in the right direction.
And bigger steps should come. Increased taxation that targets the rich reduces inequality. Doing so would not only be good for democracy, but also a better economy.
Larry Kazdan Vancouver
Making plans
Re “Ontario turning urban planning over to developers – what can go wrong?” (Report on Business, June 27): When well thought-out master plans, created by professional planners who have studied what is necessary for thriving neighbourhoods and healthy societies, are replaced by a few elite who are motivated mainly by profit, we as a society will likely pay for this ineptitude now and in the future.
Edda Manley Burlington, Ont.
Developers wanting to make money and running roughshod over cities? Planners struggling to stay ahead of development? Sounds like the same old tune.
The disjointed approach to providing housing and infrastructure is not unique to the Ford government. Development-led planning has been the norm for decades and permissive planning policies precede Toronto’s condo boom.
Whether we like it or not, the private development sector are experts at building housing and construct the majority of it. It’s essential to acknowledge that the best policy approach isn’t always good for business.
Setting approval time limits should not be the solution. What we should have are properly calibrated taxes, charges and fees to ensure the feasibility of development.
No, we can’t assume developers have the goodwill to foster great urban environments, but finger-pointing would also be counterproductive. A collaborative effort to construct complete cities, despite numerous challenges, offers a more constructive starting point.
Jeffrey Biggar Assistant professor, school of planning, Dalhousie University; Halifax
Urban planning shouldn’t be left to developers. But nor should it be left to bureaucrats and politicians who seek to compel private capital to do their bidding.
Our housing problem isn’t what to do with existing stock. It is how to create new stock at unprecedented levels. Rules that ignore the actual costs and risks of creating new supply would ensure there is no new supply.
By all means have master plans and create overarching objectives that serve society as a whole. But if we want those plans to come off the page and be built, they have to be viable.
Are often greedy developers responsible for what we see in the built environment today? Yes. But so too are intransigent ideologues who see recognition of economic imperatives as somehow heretical and bureaucratic nonsense that adds to costs and risks.
Darryl Squires Ottawa
Same prescription
Re “Some sensible advice on health spending, still ignored 50 years later” (June 25): Thanks to columnist André Picard for reminding readers of former health and welfare minister Marc Lalonde’s support for and report on the value of prevention of illness.
One key strength of that report is the recognition that effective prevention of illness is a multifaceted challenge, requiring contributions from a range of stakeholders. The more horsepower we can recruit to this effort, the better.
One reasonable starting point would be to build a coalition among those stakeholders who believe “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” My guess is that principle appeals to a broad range of Canadians, just as it did for Mr. Lalonde.
Chris Crapper Vancouver
As an academic family physician, I have spent my life teaching and publishing about preventive care.
We all know it takes a lot of effort to change lifestyle habits in environments that encourage us to eat badly and not be active. However, a concerted effort to promote preventive health can have enormous health and economic effects. According to research, 50 to 70 per cent of all disease can be prevented.
As a research project at the University of Ottawa, we have developed a free, bilingual preventive-care app. Studies show that most health apps are not evidence-based and do not involve health professionals.
We invite the public to use the interactive tools on icanbewell.ca or choixsante.ca to improve their health.
Cleo Mavriplis Assistant professor, University of Ottawa; adjunct professor, McGill University; 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