The Peace Tower on Parliament Hill is seen from Major's Hill Park in Ottawa, on Sept. 20.Keito Newman/The Canadian Press
Steel ourselves
Re “Stelco and the forever trade war” (Business Brief, Oct. 8): If this is war, as the Prime Minister says, then the men and women laid off are our frontline troops, incurring casualties.
It should be essential that we have their backs.
Chris Stoate Oakville, Ont.
Re “Stelco will proceed with layoffs after Ottawa issues ultimatum” (Report on Business, Oct. 12): I am outraged an American plutocratic owner will idle our plant in Hamilton while there are Canadian corporations that would buy its product.
My cynicism antenna is alerted to the point where I suspect the idling is some gesture of support for the U.S. President’s agenda, rather than a business decision.
I suggest our government confiscate the Stelco plant, activate supposedly ironclad legal guarantees and turn part of the Hamilton plant over to converting Canadian aluminum sheets into beer cans for local craft brewers, for which there is a crying need.
A final suggestion: Bring back the former Foreign Investment Review Agency’s old mandate.
Ian Guthrie Ottawa
Might suing Cleveland-Cliffs over the layoffs incentivize its U.S. management to pressure the U.S. government to ease the tariffs? Just asking.
Pierre Mihok Ajax, Ont.
Last nine
Re “With Alberta referendum in sight, the nine other ballot questions are capturing attention” (Oct. 10): The other questions on the referendum ballot seem designed to take our province closer to the goal of existing within this country without being a part of it.
Danielle Smith’s government, at our expense, has been delivering so-called information to our doors in which I see a clear attempt to skew the vote in favour of its desired direction that would ignore human rights, human dignity and the responsibility we have as human beings to care for others.
I find it despicable and dishonourable and wish this aspect of the referendum was getting more press.
Sheila Bannerman Red Deer, Alta.
On MAID
Re “The Liberals are right to restrict MAID” (Editorial, Oct. 9): People seem to be missing the point about medical assistance in dying for mental illness. The focus should be on expanding access for treatment of mental illness beyond physicians, psychiatrists and psychiatric specialists, as not only doctors with pharmaceuticals in the medical system can effectively treat depression.
As a clinical psychologist with many years of experience, I, as well as many other psychologists and other non-medical practitioners, have surprised many with effective non-medical treatments of depression. The barring of MAID occurs despite the lack of acknowledgement that such treatments can be effective.
Not all resources are available to citizens for treatment of depression because of lack of coverage by governments and health care plans. Until we address this elephant in the room, I believe the problem will continue.
Bruce Hutchison PhD, Ottawa
In 2021, Parliament was amending legislation for medical assistance in dying. In the 4.5 years since it was first legalized, we saw what worked and what did not.
More importantly, we had data. There was no evidence that the reflection period safeguarded anyone from anything, but there was evidence to suggest it mandated substantial suffering.
I gave testimony to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and supplied some of that data: The greatest number of MAID procedures occurred within 24 hours of the 10-day reflection period. As I wrote then, “The vast majority of patients who make this health care choice for themselves do so after a significant period of contemplation – weeks, months or years. Asking them to wait another 10 days while in intolerable suffering is an insult to their process and a cruel procedural requirement.”
Suggesting we return to this obstructive practice would be cruel.
Stefanie Green MDCM, CCFP; Author, This Is Assisted Dying: A Doctor’s Story of Empowering Patients at the End of Life; Victoria
More interventions
Re “The unsafe side effects of ‘safer supply’ ” (Editorial, Oct. 7): Massive overprescription was a necessary precondition to the opioid crisis, but not a sufficient one.
The key precondition was the failure to recognize that abruptly withdrawing a regulated supply from dependent individuals, in the absence of any medical or pharmaceutical “off-ramp,” would inevitably result in moving an enormous “customer base” to unregulated and increasingly toxic criminal markets.
Regardless, Canadian data are clear: Not all users have an opioid use disorder; “treatment” access is variable and in short supply, while its efficacy is uncertain; the efficacy of “gold standard” opioid agonist therapy is, at least in British Columbia, declining.
Reported harms from safer supply programs are largely anecdotal and not supported by data. Restricting this admittedly imperfect program would not magically result in fewer harms. Rather, the reverse.
A prohibitionist ethos only kicks the problem down the road. We should develop, trial and evaluate more promising interventions than those being presented.
Perry Kendall CM, OBC, FRCPC, former B.C. provincial health officer; Victoria
Less for some
Re “The fight over Old Age Security is getting louder” (Retire Rich Newsletter, Oct. 9): I recently ended my membership in the Canadian Association of Retired Persons because of its ongoing advocacy to protect seniors from reductions in Old Age Security.
The population of Canadian seniors includes a wide spectrum of people who live in single or multiperson households and have varying amounts of savings and varying levels of health or disability. Nevertheless, some of us do not require OAS.
I strongly believe we are all in this together. Unlike the Canada Pension Plan, OAS is paid out of general tax revenue on a current basis. It ought to be spent on the highest priority needs.
I suggest that OAS paid to wealthier seniors be significantly reduced and the resulting savings redirected to low-income seniors (via the Guaranteed Income Supplement), as well as families with children by increasing the maximum family income permitted before the Canada Child Benefit is clawed back.
Griete Wemekamp Kingston, Ont.
I get both sides of the argument over reducing Old Age Security. I get how it is a political loser to roll back benefits.
What if we permitted those who are entitled, but don’t need OAS, to decline it and receive a full tax deduction in return? Less tax revenue, yes, but more than offset by the money saved.
This may not be it, but there must be a middle-ground solution that everyone can support.
Brian McCluskey 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