The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

th ei fp .c a Th e IF P -H al to n H ill s | T hu rs da y, F eb ru ar y 20 ,2 02 0 | 6 ABOUT US This newspaper, published every Thursday, is a division of the Metroland Media Group Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Torstar Corporation. The Metroland family of newspapers is comprised of more than 80 community publications across Ontario. This newspaper is a member of the National NewsMedia Council. Complainants are urged to bring their concerns to the attention of the news- paper and, if not satisfied, write The National NewsMedia Council, Suite 200, 890 Yonge St., Toronto, ON M4W 2H2. Phone: 416-340-1981 Web: www.mediacouncil.ca newsroom@theifp.ca IndependentAndFreePress @IFP_11 WHO WE ARE Publisher Kelly Montague Regional General Manager Steve Foreman Regional Managing Editor Catherine O'Hara Managing Editor Karen Miceli Distribution Representative Iouliana Polar Real Estate Kristie Pells Regional Production Manager Manuel Garcia Production Shelli Harrison Halton Media General Manager Vicki Dillane CONTACT US The Independent & Free Press 280 Guelph Street, Unit 77 Georgetown, ON L7G 4B1 Phone: 905-873-0301 Classifieds: 1-800-263-6480 Fax: 905-873-0398 Letters to the editor All letters must be fewer than 320 words and include your name and telephone number for verification purposes. We reserve the right to edit, condense or reject letters. Published letters will appear in print and/or online at theifp.ca Delivery For all delivery inquiries, please e-mail lpolar@miltoncanadianchampion.com or call 905-234-1019. OPINION TO LEARN HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR OWN CONTENT VISIT THEIFP.CA When Canada passed a set of rules governing Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in 2016, the federal govern- ment knew they were just a starting point. It knew, and said publicly, that the laws would need to evolve. It had to have known that because the new guide- lines were quite restrictive they would face legal chal- lenges. What it might not have predicted is how quickly that would happen. Late last year the Superior Court of Que- bec ruled that it is unconstitutional to limit access to assisted death services to people nearing the end of life. The challenge was launched by Quebec residents Nicole Gladue and Jean Truchon, both of whom suffer from incurable degenerative illnesses and had requested assisted death, only to have their requests denied be- cause their deaths were not "reasonably foreseeable." Justice Christine Baudouin also invalidated of the sec- tion of the Quebec law that states MAID applicants must be "at the end of life." Neither the Quebec nor the federal government chose to appeal the Quebec ruling, which means the struck sec- tions of the law now need to be replaced by new ones that do not violate the constitutional rights of people seeking MAID, but also protect people who could be victimized if the law was applied too liberally or improperly. There is no questioning the soundness of the Quebec ruling, either from a legal or a common sense perspective. It never made sense to say yes to a person who is weeks or months away from death due to terminal illness but say no a another person of sound mind whose premature death is equally certain, just not as imminent. Under the original law, a person with an Alzheimer's diagnosis who wants assisted death at the point they become incapacitated and no longer know their loved ones would probably have been rejected as their death was not reasonably foreseeable. That should be different under a revised law. This is a matter Canadians feel strongly about. Some don't want assisted death at all. Others, including some in the medical establishment, appear satisfied with the existing law. Others felt the original criteria were too narrow and need to be broadened. But significantly, recent public opinion data suggests a strong majority of Canadians want broader access to MAID services. And so the government is moving toward a broader approach. Obviously, it should not rush. But neither can it tread water because we now have a court ruling which states the existing law is unfair and violates the consti- tution. Public data shows that about 6,700 Canadians have accessed assisted dying services since the law was past four years ago. We don't know how many have applied and been rejected, but we do know that the most com- mon reason for being rejected is that death is not "imme- diately foreseeable." That's unfair at its core. The gov- ernment needs to ensure more people can access MAID to end their lives with dignity, and on their own terms. MOVE CAREFULLY BUT QUICKLY ON ACCESS TO MAID SNAPSHOT A squirrel finds a chestnut in a Georgetown backyard during a recent snowstorm. Got a great local photo you'd like to share? Send it to sleblanc@metroland.com, along with a brief description. Judy Adam photo Is it fair for do-it-yourself investors to pay for advice they neither asked for nor received? This question will be answered by the courts. In January, a class-ac- tion lawsuit named 11 dis- count brokerage firms. This included divisions of the six major Canadian banks. This pending legal deci- sion could require these large financial firms to re- pay billions of dollars taken from individual investor's accounts over many years. The lawsuit is based on the collection of trailing com- missions on mutual funds. The intent of trailing com- missions is to provide remu- neration to financial advis- ers for providing ongoing in- vestment advice to clients. Many clients use an ad- viser, and many do not. The do-it-yourself investor might just prefer to manage finances on their own, not want to pay for advice, or a combination of both. That seems pretty straightforward. Apparent- ly it is not. For many years, dis- count brokers collected on- going trailer fees from their clients. Discount brokers do not offer advice. They are not allowed to offer advice. The practice of charging for advice by discount bro- kers came to light a few years ago and received a fair amount of press. The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA), an umbrella group for all pro- vincial securities commis- sions, studied this practice. It plans to ban trailing com- missions collected from the accounts of do-it-yourself in- vestors. Here's where it gets inter- esting. In 2017 the CSA released a paper that stated $30 bil- lion of mutual funds were held in discount brokerage accounts. Over 80 per cent of that figure, or $25 billion, was held in mutual funds paying a trailing commis- sion. Assume investors paid a one per cent trailing com- mission on $25 billion over 10 plus years, that means in- vestors where charged ex- cessively -- potentially in the billions -- during that period of time. Potentially adding insult to injury, the legal claim al- leges these investors were not aware of this charge. So much for the notion of transparency, if true. Peter Watson is regis- tered with Aligned Capital Partners Inc. (ACPI) to provide investment advice. The opinions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACPI. Peter Watson provides wealth management servic- es through Watson Invest- ments BILLION(S) DOLLAR QUESTION LOOMING EDITORIAL LAWSUIT UNDERWAY AGAINST DISCOUNT BROKERS OVER MUTUAL FUND SALES, WRITES PETER WATSON PETER WATSON Column