Information regarding the Canada Pension Plan on the Service Canada website.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Priorities, priorities
Re “Deaths rising in aftermath of Western aid cuts, relief agencies say” (May 5): The 1969 Pearson Commission set the minimal bar for official development assistance at 0.7 per cent of GNP.
The United Nations voted to establish that figure in 1970 as the goal of the Second United Nations Development Decade. Again, in 2000, this became an implied part of the Millennium Development Goals.
Reiterated numerous times, if met only by a handful of countries, Canada rarely has met half that goal. Now we are scheduled to decline to 0.17 per cent in four years, with a cut of $2.7-billion.
Compare that to our $63-billion-plus expenditure on the defence file to meet the NATO goal of 2 per cent of GDP, as well as a further commitment to spend 5 per cent by 2035. What would Lester B. Pearson, Mark Carney’s apparent exemplar for our international posture, have said about this radical reordering of priorities?
We should be ashamed at this hypocrisy.
Jack Arn Toronto
Unfair return
Re “Ottawa’s plan to lower CPP premiums today may be regretted tomorrow” (Report on Business, May 5): I both regret and oppose this decision for a number of reasons.
Under the guise of the “affordability crisis,” a modest yearly savings of $133 for the average worker does not justify the large break being afforded large corporations. For example, Canada’s Big Five banks, already making record profit, would average yearly savings of at least $50-million. How is this justified or by any measure fair?
To remove a total of $3-billion from the Canada Pension Plan, at a time when private employers continue to abandon the sponsorship of decent defined benefit pensions plans, is just plain wrong.
If CPP has more resources than needed to meet its current pension obligations, then the plan itself, modest by international standards, ought to be improved to provide better pensions to Canadians.
Paul Moist Winnipeg
MAID limits?
Re “Voices on MAID” (Letters, May 11): Opponents of medical assistance in dying for mental illness appear to disregard the fact that conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression and post-traumatic stress disorder are legitimate and severe medical illnesses, not merely responses to an unsupportive environment.
Psychiatry, like all medical specialties, has limitations. Thus there will always be some individuals who do not respond to best practices and for whom suffering is immense.
These individuals are often left with no other relief than ending their lives by violent means. Canada should follow the lead of other enlightened jurisdictions by providing compassionate care and allowing access to medical assistance in dying to alleviate intolerable suffering.
Donald Wasylenki MD, FRCPC; professor emeritus, University of Toronto
Over 30 years working in the justice system, I interacted with a large number of people with mental health issues (the criminalization of these people is a subject worthy of informed debate).
My experience has made it clear to me that people with mental health issues tend to be highly suggestible. This is why they’re so often targeted by drug dealers. Presenting medical assistance in dying to these people would result in many taking up the offer without a clear understanding of what they’re agreeing to.
As a society, we have a responsibility for the care and treatment of these people. I believe MAID is a cynical way of dealing with mental health regardless of whether they fully comprehend the issue or not.
Steve Soloman Toronto
Butt out
Re “Can we spare future generations from the horrors of smoking?” (May 5): Having watched a parent move slowly to her death, I wish I had pushed harder to get her to stop smoking. But I wouldn’t have listened either; peers made sure of that early in my life.
Britain’s novel approach of timing out smoking may work and provide hundreds of millions of dollars for health care over a fairly brief time. Let’s do think seriously about timing out.
Kelly Butler Ottawa
In time, people will wonder how cigarettes remained a legal product for so long after their deadly effects were known.
Strong statistical documentation dates back to 1951 with the British Doctors Study. The two doctors and one epidemiologist who did the work were given knighthoods, but no laws followed; governments knew many voters were smokers.
Cigarettes were not only legally advertised, but the Royal Family also gave endorsements through royal warrants, even after Queen Elizabeth’s father, King George VI, died at age 56 while suffering from lung cancer.
James Bond was a three-pack-a-day man, and likely so was his creator, Ian Fleming, who also died at age 56. But 20 Bond films show smoking as a good thing to do when figuring out how to escape death. Who knows what smoking did to Bond?
With the decline in smoking, Canada could easily take this next step toward a smoke-free generation.
Lynn McDonald CM; former MP; author, Non-smokers’ Health Act, 1988; Toronto
Take a breath
Re “Advocates call on Ottawa to commit to mandatory anti-drunk-driving technology in new vehicles” (May 5): This would institute “guilty until proven innocent” law and I believe it is an unwarranted attack on civil liberties.
In a 2025 report, the Traffic Injury Research Foundation noted Canadian fatalities involving drinking drivers declined by 51.7 per cent between 1996 and 2022. Self-driving technology is progressing and promises to make driving safer, not only in relation to drinking, but for fatigue and distraction. The suggestion that Canada should mandate Orwellian state control, for a problem being solved by other means, should be seen as overreach.
To protect the rights of Canadians, the Public Safety Minister should reject this ill-considered scheme.
Terry Labach Waterloo, Ont.
Growing up, my friend lost his mother to a drunk driver as she was coming home from work in the early morning hour.
Citing the number of deaths due to drunk driving doesn’t begin to tell the generational pain and agony that prevails in such tragedies. To apply technologies that will potentially stop drunk drivers is unequivocally a good solution and long-awaited good news.
With this in mind, detractors should stop raising all sorts of potential minute faults and petty possibilities. They seem to be detractors for the sake of being detractors.
There were detractors right up until mandatory seatbelt laws were enacted. Look how that turned out.
Joanne O’Hara Oakville, Ont.
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