Not allowed to say God in the Armed Forces

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces were told they should not call upon God during public prayers to prioritize inclusivity and diversity.

Apparently, the Department of National Defence has indicated that public prayer must reflect the spiritual and religious diversity of Canada.

Additionally, chaplains have been directed that they should not use the word “God” to ensure that all feel included and able to participate in reflection no matter their beliefs.

It is an obvious attempt to secularize the military. But what about the freedom of religion, which Canadian military members should be entitled to practice.

Prayers occupy a significant place in the world of the military. It is vital as a means of asking for protection from the dangers they face, and it ensures spiritual fitness.

It seems that there is now no place for Christians in the military, inclusivity should also include God. What next, banning the Lord’s Prayer?

Roger Cyr, OMM, CD

Victoria

Make things better now, avoid pain later

Re: “Court approves $23B for First Nations child welfare,” Oct. 25.

The federal government’s agreement to provide compensation is a welcome, if belated, settlement — but wouldn’t it have been simpler, and cheaper, to have done the right thing in the first place?

What other discriminatory practices are currently in place that future generations will have to compensate for? What say we stop them now, rather than later?

Jonathan Stoppi

Saanich

Developers, spend time in neighbourhoods

What is with property developers in the Capital Regional District?

When considering a development do they not do some homework? Do they consider the neighbourhood that will soon be the recipient of their latest monolith?

Does their latest dream project fit in nicely with the character of the homes around it? Have they considered the impact on traffic flow and other changes to the community that will become the collateral damage of their development?

If so, it should only take one meeting with the community to get a thumbs up, well done, thanks for thinking of us!

Instead … we get to begin a game of Whack-a-Mole with the developer and the municipality.

OK, now maybe the developer can save those old Garry Oaks, and maybe we can reduce to six storeys from eight on this single-family lot, and we can revisit the original garish paint colour we chose … sorry about the hassle, but we know you have nothing better to do than worry about the next project coming your way.

I reside in James Bay and we welcome “missing middle housing” … in fact, we are experts at it. So, developers, if you can hear us!

Walk the neighbourhood, get a feel for the vibe, check out the schools, do some research … then present a viable, liveable option that the community will be happy to support rather than making us play Whack-a-Mole until everyone is exhausted.

Al Morrison

Victoria

Unanticipated housing consequences

Principal home housing stock (a basement suite, a bedroom) may possibly be more suited to long-term rental .

I know someone who rents their basement suite to a long-term renter but also owns a legal non-conforming short-term rental condo.

They are between long-term tenants in the basement suite and are now thinking to sell the condo and make the basement unit a short-term rental.

That will take the basement unit out of long-term rental market. Another unintended consequence of STR Accommodations Act (Bill 35).

Debra Sheets, Ph.D., MSN, RN, FAAN

Professor emeritus, School of Nursing

University of Victoria

Corporate thinking versus health care

We have a major crisis around the administration of medical care. More and more of it is being turned over to the private sector, whose purpose is responsibility to shareholders, not altruistic care.

I’m one of thousands who have to deal with a corporation as my family doctor. A corporation that turns any need for face-to-face attention into two appointments.

A corporation that tells its physicians to deal with only one issue at a time, thus negating the need for an essential holistic approach to medical care and has physicians renew prescriptions for short durations.

All of this creates multiple appointments which in turn means more payments from the government and more profits. Also a corporation that does not effectively share results with specialists.

Not having a smartphone and their app I can’t access my medical records.

The stories of wait lines, hospitals on probation, inadequate care, etc. show that some difficulties are in administration and not shortcomings by medical staff despite staff shortages.

An official in the Ministry of Health told me that the government does not tell businesses how to operate.

In my opinion, if you’re giving them public funds, you have the right to tell them what to do.

Unfortunately, our governments will not admit that they may be incompetent and that they probably need help, and are not willing to seek the advice of efficiency experts or the public.

Things do not look like they’re going to change, and this is very sad and expensive.

Ivan Olynyk

Victoria

Beyond work barriers, there are still problems

Having worked with many professional regulating bodies around the world, I can only applaud the B.C. government’s commitment to reducing and removing unwarranted barriers to the employment of workers who have qualified outside of B.C.

However, there appears to be no acknowledgement of what are often the primary constraints to the desired reforms. Specifically:

• The legal requirement for many such bodies to protect the public through ensuring the competence of practitioners.

• The cost of assuring competence amongst those from outside B.C. falling on the applicant and/or current practitioners.

Reference is made to unwarranted tests of English (or French?). What are the implications if a potential practitioner cannot read and accurately interpret B.C. and Canadian regulations or cannot adequately communicate with potential clients/customers?

Who is liable if such a practitioner fails to comply with such regulations or adequately advise the customer/client?

More challenging is the matter of different cultural expectations. How are these assessed and addressed to ensure a practitioner meets Canadian expectations?

These matters can be evaluated to ensure Canadian and B.C. residents are adequately protected but such evaluations are not cheap.

This speaks to what has previously often undermined attempts to better facilitate the recognition of foreign-trained workers. Regulating bodies are funded through fees paid by existing practitioners.

A perpetual conundrum: we make existing practitioners pay to protect the public in the future. Where such bodies have tried to open up access to foreign-trained workers the actual cost of protecting the public has fallen on the applicant and is often prohibitive.

Here is the bad news: It is not just about the cost of changing practices. Is the government going to meet the cost of protecting the public?

Graham Debling

Sidney

Patient accountability encourages self care

It is good to see agreement among provincial and territorial health ministers to streamline licensing requirements for doctors and nurses across the country, and to simplify entry procedures for foreign-trained physicians.

However, it is ironic that the political leadership and health leadership across Canada is so consumed in the supply side of the health-care crisis that there is no public discourse on managing demand for health services.

Building new hospitals, opening more medical schools, and bringing foreign-trained nurses and doctors would help, but it is not going to ensure sustainability of the health system unless we start managing both supply and demand simultaneously.

Our leadership needs to broaden its focus and start talking not only about how they are training new doctors or building hospitals but also how they are encouraging patients to assume some accountability for their own health.

Patient accountability does not mean any form of “user fee” as is often advocated by private interests.

Rather, the focus should be on finding and instituting a mix of incentives and disincentives for patients to encourage prevention and self-care.

Health leadership’s focus needs to go beyond expanding health resources to also include public discourse on managing patients’ demand so that British Columbians have a sustainable health-care system for a long haul.

Paramjit S. Rana

Victoria

Time for us to pay for all our partying

Re: “Measure the impact of the carbon tax,” letter, Oct. 19.

Yes, the carbon tax adds to the price of almost everything, as it should. In a free market, accounting for the real cost of things drives discussion making that lowers every avoidable cost.

Ideally, the cost of climate-altering activities would be tacked onto the cost of things such that we taxpayers would not need to foot the bill for the consequences.

If the carbon tax were doing its job, we’d be relying almost entirely on locally produced food and goods. Food would be fresher and better quality.

It is also true that, before we arrive at the real price for everything, we need extra incentives to help with the transition to long-term solutions.

The pain of the carbon tax is due to the loss leader we’ve been sold in the form of cheap goods with huge climate-change footprints.

Sadly, it’s now time to pay for all of our partying rather than pass the bill on to the next generation.

Rod Brindamour

Salt Spring Island

SEND US YOUR LETTERS

• Email: [email protected]

• Mail: Letters to the editor, Times Colonist, 201-655 Tyee Rd., Victoria, B.C. V9A 6X5

• Submissions should be no more than 250 words; subject to editing for length and clarity. Provide your contact information; it will not be published.