Medical Assistance in Dying committee vice-chair Tamara Jansen speaks as members Michael Cooper, right, Todd Doherty, centre, and Andrew Lawton, left, look on on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 17.Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press
Sound familiar?
Re “British PM Keir Starmer says he will resign by September” (June 23): It seems appropriate to enumerate how bad things have gotten in Britain: high taxes; high sovereign debt loads; generous universal social spending financed by borrowing; slow, sluggish growth; low labour productivity.
A bloated, expensive, unproductive public service; too much regulation requiring too many layers of bureaucrats to administer; wasteful investments of public money into the economy; incoherent immigration policy; natural resource projects blocked by special interest groups and political considerations.
This certainly seems like a recipe for economic and societal failure in not only Britain, but many other countries – like perhaps the one where we live?
Paul Bond Toronto
Re “If Andy Burnham becomes Britain’s next PM, he would just be a more popular version of familiar politics” (June 23): As an expat, when I read about Andy Burnham’s sky-high popularity during his term as Greater Manchester mayor, I couldn’t help but be reminded of a previous British prime minister who was also a popular mayor in London: Boris Johnson.
We all know how that turned out.
Geoff Stagg Comox, B.C.
Bank on it
Re “Canada’s Big Six banks are soaring like AI stocks. Can it seriously last?” (Report on Business, June 23): Unlike most publicly traded stocks, Canada’s banks can’t be taken over by other non-Canadian bank businesses. This offers investors more investment ownership confidence than other non-bank equities.
As well, the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions has improved the minimum threshold for a bank’s capital ratio (“Banking regulator lowers capital levels to spur more loans at ‘hinge moment’ for the economy” – Report on Business, June 20) which will allow them to profit more from lending to growth opportunities, such as any of Canada’s new fast-track capital projects and other technology investment opportunities.
Finally, with real estate investment opportunities declining, some former real estate investors may be more attracted to other opportunities such as bank investments.
Brian Strader Oakville, Ont.
Referral system
Re “Politicians can’t seem to make a clear decision on MAID, so let’s leave it to the Supreme Court” (June 23): The public policy debate on medical assistance in dying began with a Supreme Court ruling. It would only be fitting that the court review the issues surrounding MAID for mental illness, particularly the issues of competency to decide and Charter rights.
The government should refer the issue without delay.
Steve Lurie CM; former executive director, Canadian Mental Health Association Toronto
In the 2015 Carter case, the Supreme Court allowed medical assistance in dying because prohibition of this would have offended Section 7 of the Charter. Similarly in 2019, the Quebec courts declared that limiting MAID to those who were terminally ill offended the Charter, which led to the two-track system we now have.
I cannot imagine that the Supreme Court would allow legislation that removes Charter rights from a whole class of citizens, those with mental illness. The way out of this mess for the government is a referral to the Supreme Court now.
Other than that, some Canadian with a mental illness would have to challenge the law on their own.
Derryck Smith Clinical professor emeritus, department of psychiatry, University of British Columbia; Vancouver
When the U.S. Supreme Court heard TikTok v. Garland last year, the justices let on in their questioning a certain unfamiliarity with the way digital things work. To many, this spoke to the absurdity of getting non-experts to judge well.
However, as Plato shows in his dialogue Ion, there may be something more important than expertise: prudence, the kind that allows someone to reach wise decisions concerning a range of cases. A court’s expertise is in justice, not shipbuilding or shoemaking or, in this case, the knowledge of whether clinicians can distinguish between a “rational request for MAID and suicidality.”
There is a point to a system where our justices rule on the basis of their prudence, their justice and their fidelity in interpretation of the law, rather than let this or that association of psychiatrists win the day through joint letters.
Lewis Sherman Vancouver
It seems that critics who describe the “can’t do” spirit of our legislators cannot deal with the committee conclusion that medical assistance in dying for mental illness is something that Canada shouldn’t do.
This bipartisan committee heard from many psychiatric experts, the vast majority of whom recommended against it. These are people who have spent their professional lives treating these illnesses.
I would rather take their advice than the Supreme Court’s opinion. To me, this is not a legal issue but rather a complex moral one to be decided by our elected representatives. As it should be.
A recommendation to the Supreme Court seems like an attempt to do an end run around a decision that critics don’t like.
Colin Lockhart Carleton North, N.B.
The inability of Parliament to reach consensus on medical assistance in dying for mental illness does not necessarily represent failure; it may reflect the reality that Canadians themselves remain divided on a profound ethical issue.
In a democracy, disagreement should not be a reason to transfer responsibility from elected representatives to unelected judges. Courts have an essential role in interpreting the law and protecting constitutional principles, but they should not be a substitute legislature. When politicians avoid difficult decisions by seeking judicial intervention, they weaken democratic accountability.
Regardless of the final policy choice, Parliament should assume responsibility, debate openly and defend its decision to Canadians. A healthy democracy requires elected officials willing to govern, not defer.
Louis-Philippe Noël Montmagny, Que.
Price is right
Re “Can Ottawa save you from the scourge of surveillance pricing?” (Report on Business, June 18): I think it’s the wrong question. Should Ottawa even try?
We live in a time when it has never been easier to price check an offer; competitors are a click away.
Too busy to search? Prompt artificial intelligence to find the lowest price. Prices changing dynamically? Friendly agentic bots can check 24/7 and notify when they drop. Not comfortable with AI? Text friends and have them check instead. Want prices to come down? Don’t buy: The algorithm will adjust.
With all the things Ottawa needs to address, surveillance pricing is one thing we can easily manage by ourselves, but thanks.
Bob Rafuse Beaconsfield, Que.
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