Prime Minister Mark Carney on Parliament Hill on Wednesday. Carney says he's expecting the parliamentary committee to issue its report on the expansion of MAID in the coming weeks.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
What’s missing?
Re “Louise Arbour ticks every box for the job of governor-general” (May 7): I agree that Louise Arbour is an inspired choice for our next Governor-General. However, to claim that she “ticks every box for the job,” it must be concluded that one of the boxes is marked: “does not come from outside Central Canada.”
This, after all, merely reflects 21st-century practice: all six governors-general this century have come from either Ontario or, mainly, Quebec. The last exception, Roméo LeBlanc of New Brunswick, was appointed by Jean Chrétien in 1995. The last Western governor-general, Ray Hnatyshyn of Saskatchewan, was appointed by Brian Mulroney in 1990.
The last governor-general from British Columbia … well, after 155 years in Confederation, we’re still waiting for that appointment. But as we are used to hearing from Ottawa in this part of the country, maybe next time.
John Whyte North Vancouver
The last thing that Canada needs is an activist or opinionated Governor-General. There are too many tripwires ready to detonate social cohesion.
The role of Governor-General is intended to be bland, non-judgemental, non-controversial, conciliatory. Leave opinions to politicians, columnists, activists and sitting judges.
Queen Elizabeth had it right: Never complain, never explain. Stirring controversy is not part of the job description.
Ron Freedman Toronto
Not again
Re “Our pension funds must be sovereign wealth funds, too – even if pensioners take a hit" (Report on Business, May 4): This dredges up a terrible idea from the past, which should be abandoned again.
Registered retirement savings plans during the Pierre Trudeau era were subjected to the “foreign property rule,” which restricted such investments to 10 per cent of a portfolio’s book value. These restrictions, which eventually increased to 30 per cent and were in place until 2005, resulted in people such as myself, who relied on RRSPs for retirement funds, getting much poorer returns. There was too much money chasing too few Canadian investment options.
Elsewhere, the Canada Pension Plan went from nearly insolvent to properly funded by two things: increasing contributions and allowing foreign investments.
Let’s not return to a dreadful, profligate idea that has already failed. Let us invest retirement funds for the best possible returns, so retirees can have a reasonable golden age without worrying about sinking into poverty.
Douglas Crawford Barrie, Ont.
By example
Re “Bank on it” (Letters, April 4): A letter-writer argues “we need to loosen up” by encouraging more intelligent risk-taking by our banks, comparing the approach of our bank regulator relative to that in the United States, where more than 400 banks have failed since 2008.
There is also the costs of bank failures. In the U.S., they fuelled a financial crisis that cost US$6-trillion to $US14-trillion, according to a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, working out to US$50,000 to US$120,000 for every U.S. household. A broader measure in the same study suggests a loss of total wealth ranging from US$15-trillion to US$30-trillion, an amount equal to 100 to 190 per cent of U.S. output in 2007.
Greater risk-taking by banks, as our Prime Minister warns us, puts us in danger of facing a “heads they win, tails we lose” bet.
John Chant North Vancouver
Slippery slope
Re “A plea for transparency in plea deals” (Editorial, May 4): Criminal prosecution files are confidential. Only the defence is entitled to disclosure, and that right is robust. The public and media are entitled to know what is made public through litigation.
Litigants, including the Crown, enjoy privilege over the reasoning behind their deliberations and decisions. Were this otherwise, the Crown would become a puppet of the government (or the mob).
There is no such privilege over operative law. It is available to the public and media to review at large. One may disagree with the choices made, so there is lawful recourse to prosecutorial misconduct.
Yet you demand to know more; in essence, to breach Crown deliberative privilege. Why stop there? Why not open the Crown to complete disclosure in the first instance? Let the public see everything or decide based on what media chooses to publish.
Who needs courts at all? You can quickly see where this reasoning goes.
Ron Beram Gabriola, B.C.
Voices on MAID
Re “Carney says he won’t take a position on MAID expansion until committee report released” (May 7): For anyone who watched the proceedings on medical assistance in dying and mental illness, it should not be difficult to conclude that people with mental disabilities will once again be denied the health care vital to alleviate their suffering.
As someone with multiple disabilities who supports MAID for all disabilities, it was apparent to me that we were underrepresented during the hearings. Organizations who claimed to represent all people with disabilities were advocating for further restrictions and dominated public discussion.
How can the committee report reflect the fairness Canadians expect of our parliamentary system when it does not seem balanced and only presents one side? The committee had an obligation, regardless of personal beliefs, to have balanced testimony from those with lived experience.
Public policy should not be driven by the assumption that people with disabilities are incapable of making deeply personal decisions about their own suffering, dignity and demise.
Harry Ennis Toronto
Late in 2025, after suffering debilitating strokes and paralysis, my husband faced a bleak future. Each day brought on new challenges. Long-term care was out.
At home, attending physical needs soon pointed to medical assistance in dying. A team of physicians and nurses came quickly.
Screening was respectful and thorough as part of an exceptional, life-affirming process. Given time to share my husband’s life experiences, the scales tipped away from the physical to his increasingly painful mental suffering.
The eve prior to MAID, our family gathered for a most joyful and intimate celebration. My husband was a highly respected writer. When he could no longer seize the day, we knew it was his time – the right time.
MAID should continue to be an option on a case-by-case basis, with screening governed by teams of eminent professionals representing all areas of medicine. Each case must be assessed with care and empathy.
Marianna Kingsmill Hamilton
Not old enough
Re “Plan in the works for 24 Sussex Drive, Carney says” (May 8): So 24 Sussex has been the prime minister’s house only since 1951. That’s younger than me. Hardly historic.
Are we stuck in the past? Build a replacement.
Successful evolution preserves the most useful features, but grows more functional.
Ed Rotstein Hamilton
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