Danielle Smith makes a comment during the United Conservative Party of Alberta leadership candidate's debate in Medicine Hat, Alta., on July 27.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Pay, pal
Re Crisis Point (Letters, Oct. 3): A letter-writer argues that low salaries are to blame for poor retention of family doctors and nurses. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information, the average annual income of family physicians is about $331,000, whereas the annual income for nurses is less than $90,000.
Undoubtedly, nurses should be better compensated. But the solution to doctor shortages should not lie in more pay, but in a better working experience which demands, among other things, a more reliable and supportive health system, so that patients get the right care from the right people in a timely fashion.
Robert Stacey and Jolanda Turley, MD; Ottawa
Behind the scenes
Re BC Cancer’s Decline Linked To Change In Bureaucracy (Oct. 1): As a medical oncologist at BC Cancer from 1982 to 2010 and as vice-president of cancer care from 2005 to 2010, I’ve observed the dislocation of expert oncology advice from clinicians to government since the inception of the Provincial Health Services Authority.
In my experience, its governance model has not supported multiyear planning to gradually grow specialized staff, investment in resources, capital equipment for radiotherapy and expansion of facilities. Instead, layers of bureaucracy have stifled the voices of experts and eroded clinical governance, cancer care and research, to the point where staff are under strain and patient wait times are unacceptable.
New funding for staff and proposals for investment cannot compensate for years of attrition. The demographics of an aging population drive predictable growth in cancer incidence, yet there was a failure to address inevitable demands for diagnosis and care in an increasingly complex therapeutic environment.
British Columbia deserves better.
Susan O’Reilly Director, National Cancer Control Programme of Ireland (2010-2015); Trinity College Dublin; Fingal, Ireland
Big spender
Re Cut It Out (Letters, Oct. 3): A letter-writer asks: “Who exerts greater care and attention, and spends money most effectively? Ourselves or somebody in government?”
Malls are filled with well-clothed people carrying $500 clutch purses. Roads are filled with shiny, expensive cars and pickup trucks. Advertising for sports betting fills our television screens. Arenas charge $12 or more for a beer. No one, including members of my family, does their own nails any more.
Meanwhile, we don’t have enough hospital beds, nursing salaries are capped, roads everywhere are pot-holed, etc. Does that answer the question?
Jacques Soucie Newmarket, Ont.
Western worries
Re Danielle Smith’s Rise Has Been Fuelled By Alienated Albertans (Oct. 3): There will always be politicians like Danielle Smith who preach to the discontented with questionable promises. They may win and succeed to power. But promising and delivering are two separate issues.
The Alberta Heritage Fund has grown, thanks to the rise in oil and gas prices. Perhaps Albertans and Ms. Smith now feel emboldened to not have to share transfer payments with other provinces. That certainly wasn’t their song a few years ago when the Alberta economy was bleak.
I find it shameful that Ms. Smith is playing on discontent with COVID-19 mandates and lockdowns. I’m happy that the federal government was overprotective, but basically prudent and followed the science.
Canada is a confederation that forms a country believing in peace, order and good government. Ms. Smith is entitled to her views in a democracy. Just don’t promise changes that aren’t legal, or won’t come without serious long-term consequences.
Gary Raich Westmount, Que.
Power up
Re Extending Life Of Pickering Plant Too Risky: Critics (Sept. 30): I am baffled that critics of this decision don’t see a contradiction in fighting to shut down the nuclear power plant in Pickering, Ont., which “supplies around 15 per cent of the province’s power,” because it would “cost too much.”
Energy is part of the bedrock of modern society. Critics should look no further than Europe, where residents are spending multiple times more than normal to heat their homes this winter, to understand whether reducing supply has an impact on price. Have we learned nothing from these unfolding crises?
What’s more, I believe nuclear power is among the safest and most efficient sources of energy. Our reactors are also made up of a supply chain that is 95-per-cent Canadian. And they run year-round, whether the wind blows or the sun shines.
Why would we throw that away?
Aaron Ries Toronto
Re Government Regulations Slowing Global Energy Shift, Shell Says (Report on Business, Sept. 28): Canada’s economic, environmental and energy policies are not functioning to the full benefit of Canadians, the global community or the environment.
The world could use Canada’s natural gas to displace the use of coal and reduce greenhouse gases. The West could use Canada’s natural gas to combat the tyranny of Vladimir Putin. Canadians could use royalties to pay for social programs.
Even Europeans, arguably the leaders of global energy transition, are taking a more pragmatic approach in the short and medium term by labelling natural gas as green for investments. The federal government should get with the times and change policies that are causing these barriers to a better world, politically, environmentally and economically.
E. G. Pow Delta, B.C.
Times change
Re Liz Truss Is No Margaret Thatcher (Opinion, Oct. 1): It remains to be seen whether Liz Truss has the fortitude of Margaret Thatcher.
The former prime minister had the good fortune of her time in office coinciding with the explosion of wealth from exploitation of North Sea oil and gas. This allowed Ms. Thatcher the fiscal security to back tax cuts and fights with unions.
Ms. Truss faces the reverse situation: massive debts and increasing uncertainty following Brexit, situations requiring a stalwart response which would have challenged even the Iron Lady, I suspect.
Ian Guthrie Ottawa
Must-see TV
Re Why We Love Old-timey TV (First Person, Sept. 29): In the late 1960s, when I was in middle and high school and on the days that I didn’t have extracurricular activities, I’d rush home to binge-watch my favourite show.
Yes, binge-watch. No parental interference whatsoever. Between 4 and 6 p.m., I’d veg in front of the television when reruns of I Love Lucy ran back-to-back. Lucy made me laugh. And I ended up a strong feminist despite (or maybe because of) the role of women portrayed back then.
Kids today, programmed for every minute of their lives, should have more downtime. Parents should lighten up and let them turn on the good old shows.
Carol Town Hamilton
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