Prime Minister Mark Carney speaks during an announcement on the Canada Strong Fund in Ottawa on April 27.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
How-to
Re “The Canada Strong Fund: a solution no one can describe, for a problem no one can identify” (Opinion, May 2): Mark Carney is exploring ways for individual Canadians to co-invest in our sovereign wealth fund.
Given the government’s track record on investing, that’s a tough sell. I would suggest he either secure Brookfield Asset Management as the lead publicly disclosed investor or offer meaningful tax-rebate incentives.
Without one or both of those measures, never would a good investment adviser pitch a client with: “Forget investing alongside Berkshire Hathaway or Bill Ackman, you really want to put your money alongside the Canadian government.”
John Budreski Whistler, B.C.
The proposed national investment fund is said to be without precedent in Canada. Yet the Canada Development Corporation existed from 1971 to 1986, when the assets were gradually privatized by the Mulroney government.
The CDC operated like a Crown corporation and had a mandate to expand Canadian control of the economy in key sectors by taking large equity stakes. It was a significant player in oil and gas and also in pharmaceuticals through Connaught Laboratories.
As a key lever of a national industrial policy along with public ownership and regulation of foreign investment, the CDC contributed significantly to economic growth in its time.
Andrew Jackson Former chief economist, Canadian Labour Congress; Ottawa
Re “Should debt-ridden Canada really be borrowing $25-billion to invest more?” (Report on Business, April 30): When the central bank provides financing, the public cost would be practically zero, because central bank profit returns to the federal government as owner.
In the postwar period, the Bank of Canada held significant amounts of Canadian public debt. During this time, the federal government funded the St. Lawrence Seaway, Trans-Canada Highway, airports, bridges, schools and hospitals, and also introduced various social programs including medicare.
In those days, the idea was to provide infrastructure at or below cost. In contrast, government now wants new initiatives to be funded by investors who expect long-run returns of 6 to 7 per cent. The result would be higher costs to consumers and more wealth extraction by the rich.
Since we already have a cost of living crisis and growing inequality which threatens to destabilize society, maybe we should remember how things were done in the good old days.
Larry Kazdan Vancouver
Final say
Re “Mark Carney’s major projects have yet to face their ultimate challenge: the courts” (Report on Business, April 30): When you build, solid is better than shaky. Faced with geopolitical uncertainty, Canada needs resilience.
The climate crisis and biodiversity collapse cause huge costs, so in the interest of all Canadians, we need a stable and predictable legal environment to tackle these challenges. The Building Canada Act, introduced in a hurry in Bill C-5, is being met with legal challenges in Ontario but also in Quebec because it does the opposite.
The act allows the government to handpick a few megaprojects and exempt them from following rules that apply to everyone else, while setting aside science and the oversight of the courts. It is a dangerous way forward just when we need more predictability, not less.
It’s also unconstitutional, according to the Centre québécois du droit de l’environnement and the 11 organizations that recently asked the courts to have a say in our legal challenge taking place in Quebec.
Geneviève Paul Executive director, CQDE; Montreal
Data breach
Re “Amendment to Alberta election law hindered probe into alleged misuse of data, watchdog says” (May 2): I find the penalties for illegally distributing voter lists, which contain private information, absolutely inadequate.
In this day and age, posting such information cannot simply be undone: The data has been scraped, archives exist and distribution to bad actors across the globe can happen in a matter of seconds.
When our information is mishandled, fines are not adequate. If political parties give sensitive data to activist organizations, those involved should worry about time behind bars.
I believe jail time is the only recourse for the public, but that requires the ruling party of the day to bolster the oversight powers of non-partisan agencies. We should have forceful laws and enforcement to demonstrate that we cherish our democratic values.
Kelsey Enns Winnipeg
More on MAID
Re “Psychiatry chairs at medical schools oppose expanding MAID for mental illness” (April 30): I was diagnosed with a severe psychotic mental illness nearly 30 years ago when I was training as a physician at a Canadian university. I have struggled with the illness, and one psychiatrist even told me it was irremediable.
However, with proper medication and support, financial stability (not having to relying solely on government support) and housing stability, my illness has significantly improved. I am even able to work in a health care field, albeit not in the field I was trained in.
Vulnerable mental health patients should be protected and not have an easy path to medical assistance in dying. The solution should not be to legalize MAID for mental illness.
Shayesta Dhalla Vancouver
I appreciate psychiatrists’ concerns about distinguishing between suicidality and a request for medical assistance in dying, and the difficulties of accessing appropriate evidence-based treatments throughout the country. However, this stance negates the rights of individuals suffering intensely with mental illness to indicate their choice regarding living or dying.
The psychiatrists’ position seems to be that such persons’ situations cannot be adequately assessed by two or even more health professionals. What are they suggesting? That MAID assessors, despite possible consultation with all kinds of experts, will cop out and simply approve MAID? I doubt that.
The person who is denied MAID, but remains intent on it, may choose to go to court, but that route is emotionally and financially challenging. Perhaps a way out of this dilemma is a trial period, perhaps five years, with an assessment by a diverse group of respected persons who will examine what transpires.
Mary Valentich Professor emerita, faculty of social work, University of Calgary
Re “MAID and mental illness” (Letters, May 4): I object to the word “euthanasia” used by a letter-writer to disparage at best. I believe “euthanasia” refers to animals, not humans.
My husband of almost 66 years chose medical assistance in dying when the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease increased dramatically and no longer had respect for his dignity. His quality of life had diminished. Instead of Cardinal Frank Leo, Archbishop of Toronto, and his appeal to Mark Carney “to choose life not death,” my husband chose dying with dignity.
Religious leaders, some politicians and those opposed to MAID might consider a day in the life of many seniors living in long-term care homes to see what choosing life looks like up close and personal. In my view, it’s not living.
Marianne Freeman Vancouver
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