People congregate outside the Supreme Court of Canada as the court hears appeals regarding Quebec’s secularism law in Ottawa on March 23.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Up the middle
Re “America’s efforts to topple the Cuban regime have lost the plot” (March 20): There is a way forward. It would require middle powers, with a proactive role for Canada, to successfully implement three types of action.
First, relieve the suffering of Cubans by breaking the oil embargo and providing humanitarian support.
Second, push Cuba to adopt major economic reforms, some of which are actually being considered by the regime.
Third, require the government to hold a United Nations or otherwise internationally supervised referendum on the establishment of a multiparty electoral system and standard freedoms of expression and assembly. Then, a year or so later, a supervised general multiparty election.
Though no publicly available opinion polls exist for Cuba, my estimation is that a solid majority would vote to eliminate communist control of the country. There also are many talented Cubans who could lead and campaign successfully in a coalition for democracy and human rights.
Archibald Ritter Professor emeritus, department of economics and Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University; Ottawa
Whose rights?
Re “Quebec defends Bill 21 at Supreme Court, says no role for judges in political debate” (March 25): The Canadian government is arguing before the Supreme Court that whenever the override provision of the Charter is used by any legislature, the court should explain whether or not its use violates our rights.
Why? “Voters and their representatives are not always necessarily in a position to determine for themselves whether a law respects Charter rights and freedoms.”
It seems only nine unelected judges can decide if Charter rights have been violated. Has this government’s contempt for its elected MPs and the people it serves ever been more obvious?
Paul Keery Brampton, Ont.
Re “At stake” (Letters, March 24): A letter-writer opines that Bill 21 “does not impose an unreasonable limit on freedom of religion.” This strikes me as an argument against Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause in this case, given that Section 1 of the Charter permits “such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
In order to truly be free and democratic, we ought to demand that our governments justify limits on Charter rights as reasonable ones, rather than vitiating them based on any manner of political whim by way of the notwithstanding clause.
Nicole Chrolavicius Lawyer and lecturer, constitutional law, Osgoode Hall Law School; Toronto
Re “In Quebec, laïcité has become its own kind of religious orthodoxy” (March 23): I support the self-determination of all people, yet find it ironic that Quebec is striving to protect the identity of Quebeckers by penalizing the expression of identity by “others.”
The application of laïcité by curtailing access to employment implies that the exercise of religion by some inherently infringes on the right of others to be nontheistic. This to me is the same argument used by those opposed to same-sex marriage: that somehow the personal choices of others limits another person’s differing self-expression.
Is there not also an implication that positions of authority cannot be filled by those who “wear their religion on their sleeve,” because they are somehow less able to deliver services in an impartial way?
All people have biases that they should overcome for the sake of the greater good.
Baghael Kaur Brampton, Ont.
On MAID
Re “Ottawa can decide that MAID is not a crime. Provinces have the right to decide that it is not health care” (March 23): Alberta’s efforts to limit its citizens’ autonomy around end-of-life decision-making is regrettable. A majority of Canadians believe that health care covers the full spectrum of beginning, middle, late and end-of-life stages.
Medical assistance in dying allows Canadians to die on their own terms and achieve the same “softer exit” we can offer our ailing pets and work animals. This hard-won human right should never be subject to interference by special interest groups.
I believe that due to doctrinal teachings imbued with misogyny, racism, homophobia and a need for societal control, these groups have historically objected to many human rights we now consider basic.
Sandra Neill Cobourg, Ont.
I support medical assistance in dying with proper guardrails, but I am writing because of the references to suicide.
As a volunteer for more than 10 years in a program offering support to survivors of suicide, one of our goals is to help them deal with stigma. Suicide no longer is and should never have been considered a criminal act.
So I cringed when I read that “the criminalization of MAID is a valid state objective where it protects the vulnerable from being induced to commit suicide in moments of weakness.”
John Childs Toronto
Alberta’s proposed legislation restricting medical assistance in dying is framed as strengthening safeguards and clarifying eligibility. Such framing risks obscuring a more consequential shift.
Canada’s MAID framework already includes provisions for individuals who are not near death. The delayed 2027 implementation relates specifically to mental illness as a sole condition, allowing time to develop safeguards and oversight.
The concern is not whether safeguards are necessary, but whether the legislation, which includes limiting physicians’ ability to refer patients for assessment outside Alberta, goes beyond safeguards and into limiting access to a legal medical option available elsewhere in Canada.
MAID should remain a last resort following rigorous assessment. But for the small number of individuals whose suffering is truly grievous and irremediable, the issue is whether access will be permitted at all.
Kathryn Andrusky MD, CCFP; Edmonton
Alberta’s proposed legislation restricting medical assistance in dying risks undermining a carefully balanced national framework.
It intrudes on federal jurisdiction, ignores court rulings, duplicates existing safeguards and will limit access to timely, informed end-of-life care. Canada’s MAID system is already highly regulated and widely supported by people across Canada, including in Alberta.
Adding barriers does not enhance protection; it prolongs suffering for eligible people seeking compassionate end-of-life choice.
Helen Long CEO, Dying with Dignity Canada; Toronto
Steeped with care
Re “Our tea ritual kept us close even when my wife was dying” (First Person, March 24): Some years ago, I visited a friend who was dying in hospital.
It was midafternoon and, while we were conversing, a volunteer entered the room carrying a silver tray with a teapot, china cups and saucers and cookies. We were both thrilled!
The volunteer told me that, of all the services they provided for people in palliative care, afternoon tea was by far the most popular.
So glad the essay-writer could find comfort from a tea ritual before and after his wife’s death. While there is tea, there is hope.
Dorothy Watts 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