Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appear after a joint press conference with EU leaders, on the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, in Kyiv, on Feb. 24.ALINA SMUTKO/Reuters
Today and tomorrow
Re “Trudeau signs security agreement with Ukraine during surprise visit marking second anniversary of war” (Online, Feb. 24): A $2.7-billion security agreement that doesn’t seem to commit Canada to doing much of anything: If press releases could win wars, our Prime Minister would be Ukraine’s saviour.
Unfortunately for Ukrainians, I see that Ottawa is better at holding press conferences than granting prompt, tangible military assistance. Of course with Canada’s military cabinet bare save for obsolescent hardware, providing tangible assistance today would be nearly impossible. Most defence contractors have full order books.
Stating the truth doesn’t result in an impressive press release.
John Shepherd Richmond, B.C.
Prescription filled
Re “Pharmacare will not jeopardize Canada’s fiscal standing, Freeland says” (Feb. 26): Bravo to the Liberals and NDP, along with many citizen advocates, on the new pharmacare agreement.
As someone with family members affected by diabetes, this policy resonates. The Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare noted in 2019 that universal access to prescription drugs would improve health outcomes, make life more affordable for millions of Canadians and significantly reduce downstream health care system costs.
Complemented by other significant policies prioritizing public well-being introduced by the Trudeau government – including $10-a-day child care, the Canada Child Benefit, Canadian Dental Care Plan and Canada Carbon Rebate – progress on universal pharmacare is validation of the Canada that I know and value: sensible, confident and caring.
Christopher Holcroft Toronto
Pierre Poilievre says that many workers have better pharmaceutical coverage through their workplaces. However, should access to health care be tied to employment?
As a Type 1 diabetic, I remember a time when I had no health care benefits and thus had to pay the cost of insulin and other expenses. Yes, there was government assistance from the provincial government, yet there were still additional costs not caught in the social welfare net.
I am happy that I now have the coverage I need, but this issue should not be a bargaining chip at an employer’s disposal. Therein lies what looks to be Mr. Poilievre’s real concern: If workers don’t have to worry about health care, then they have power to focus negotiations on wages.
David Arruda Toronto
Sound judgment
Re “Canadian judges are casting aside their deference to government with recent rulings” (Feb. 26): Underpinning our judicial system is the rule of language. Without rigorous linguistic conventions, citizens cannot obey laws and judges cannot interpret them.
In recent years, legislatures have increasingly twisted words so violently in attempts to confuse and obfuscate that judges have been forced to abandon their customary deference to those writing our laws, and to call them out for their deliberate refusal to write clearly and logically.
Justice Angela Furlanetto’s decision respecting toxic plastics noted (quite disdainfully, I thought) how legislators had ignored the difference between a toxic substance and a toxic product. Guns may be toxic, but steel is not. The authors of the law appear to have ignored this distinction deliberately.
Without a firm foundation in language and logic, our laws quickly become meaningless, our judges powerless to settle disputes. They therefore cannot afford to show any deference to legislators so bent on destroying the rule of law.
Patrick Cowan Toronto
Unsound judgment?
Re “Doug Ford says it’s his right to appoint ‘like-minded’ judges” (Feb. 24): We have been warned. The independence of our courts and respect for non-partisan legal expertise within our judicial system is now ours to lose.
Elizabeth Hay Prince Edward County, Ont.
When Doug Ford declared, “I am not going to appoint some NDP or some Liberal,” no doubt he shocked many people unaware of how the appointment process works.
Non-political review panels select the most qualified candidates and forward names to the advisory committee. Since lawyers deal daily with laws, it is unsurprising that many join political parties. Choosing between qualified candidates of known political affiliation, this provincial government normally appoints Conservatives whereas the present Federal government normally appoints Liberals.
Past efforts to change this have not succeeded. It sounds disingenuous for lawyers associations to suggest they are shocked. Although this practice looks bad, it seems to produce perfectly good judges.
As a civil litigator (now retired), my main concern was to know a judge’s area of legal expertise. They were all virtually “colour-blind” to the political spectrum, in my experience. Those with no known political affiliation were not noticeably superior.
Bob Seiler Pickering, Ont.
We don’t need tougher judges; we need tougher sentencing and parole parameters.
Mark Knudsen Mississauga
In prewar Israel, the government attempted to pass legislation that would change the panel responsible for the selection of judges to the country’s Supreme Court and tip the balance in favour of government appointees.
Over nine months, hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to register their opposition. And they were, at least for now, successful.
In direct contrast, we Ontarians (if we are at all aware of Doug Ford’s appointments) seem to shrug it off as just another example of his cronyism. We should wake up. Write, call and e-mail our MPPs.
Democracy is a fragile thing. It’s up to us to protect it and our independent judiciary.
Grace Brooker Toronto
Hard won
Re “Rich and successful? It’s likely you’re just lucky” (Report on Business, Feb. 21): I disagree (mostly) with the premise that luck and chance shape our lives and success, and that 65 per cent of statistical variance cannot be attributed to merit-based factors that correlate with wealth, an often-used but perhaps questionable proxy for success.
Why luck and circumstances? Why not phases of the moon, or the name of one’s dog?
What is likely being overlooked is the nature of an individual, in particular elements of their personality: creativity, positivism, resilience, preparedness, comfort and openness to the unknown, social skills, independent thinking, emotionality, risk tolerance, etc. Intelligence and personality are mediated through each other in complex and fascinating, but also predictable, ways.
As corporate psychologists specializing in the assessment of executives and managers for more than 40 years, we can account for 60 per cent of correlation variance in management success or failure. It is not luck; it is personality that capitalizes on luck.
Larry Stefan PhD; president, Stefan, Fraser & Associates; Vancouver
The harder I work, the luckier I am.
Kathryn Newell South Brookfield, N.S.
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