Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks during a news conference in Calgary on May 22.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Captures it
Re “For Ottawa and Alberta, the hardest part of agreeing on a pipeline plan is just beginning” (Report on Business, May 23): Ah, the sticking point: carbon capture and storage.
The oil industry has been planning “for several years” to build this project, but it seems to me CCS is nothing more than a giant greenwashing project, and it’s awkward now that companies are expected to act.
Will the Prime Minister bend? He’s already bent a bunch by lowering standards and costs and extending deadlines.
I believe one of two things will happen now. The first is cancellation, but that will be politically difficult.
The second is that standards continue to slip to the point of total irrelevance, and costs will be smoothed out by – guess who? – the hapless taxpayer, but just to tide things over until all extra costs are amortized before industry takes full ownership of the profit.
Why continue to build the economy of the 20th century? Let’s build the next one.
Ronald Kelly Surrey, B.C.
Question of honour
Re “Will Danielle Smith’s secession referendum question get around an Alberta judge’s ruling?” (May 23): I believe the proposed referendum question is a clear attempt to get around a duty to consult Indigenous groups, as held by Justice Shaina Leonard in her recent ruling. I think it is doomed to failure.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the duty to consult is based on a fundamental principle of Aboriginal law: the honour of the Crown. As it said in the 2024 Takuhikan decision, the Crown “must act honourably, with integrity and in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of ‘sharp dealing.’”
So long as Alberta is part of Canada, its government must respect the Canadian Constitution, including the constitutional duty to consult Indigenous groups.
Jim Reynolds Author, Aboriginal Peoples and the Law; Vancouver
On reconciliation
Re “With no answers unearthed at Tk̓emlúps grave sites, doubt and denialism take root" (May 23): A five-year delay in definitive answers about the Kamloops graves announcement hangs like a toxic cloud over national progress toward real reconciliation.
When the situation arose over the recovery of Indigenous women’s remains at a Winnipeg landfill site, Wab Kinew acted decisively. The search started in December, 2024, and the remains were recovered for reverent burial in July, 2025. In a few months, a hugely contentious issue was resolved.
The Kamloops question relates not just to respecting the valid cultural and spiritual concerns of the Tk’emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation, but also to the good name and integrity of an entire country. Continued delay perpetuates the damage to Canada’s reputation abroad and fosters the growth of dangerous antagonisms at home.
Both time and public confidence are running out.
Larry Muller Trent Lakes, Ont.
Our prime minister at the time declared as fact what we know to be unsubstantiated information about unmarked graves. There was no room allowed for discussion or questions. This was a disservice to all.
We are now in a position where distrust and pushback is commonplace. Patience is required, but at some point there will need to be irrefutable proof of graves to silence those who question their existence.
It took 160 years or so to get here. A few more years to get complete answers shouldn’t be viewed as problematic.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
Off the mark
Re “The bloated CPP Investment Board is trounced by its own benchmarks – again" (Opinion, May 23): It is concerning that Canada Pension Plan returns are so much lower than would be realized from passively investing, as other countries do, through exchange-traded funds, which anyone can do quickly, easily and at little cost.
The astronomical expenses of CPP management are also concerning, especially since they seem to provide little or no added value. Even I, as an octogenarian doctor with limited investing expertise, have far exceeded CPP returns.
Cynically, we all know changes should be made but that will likely not happen, even though our Prime Minister is a world-renowned economist.
Irv Salit Toronto
The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board’s accountability website materials describe activities and processes, but seem to avoid the central question: Why has its active management policy failed to deliver meaningful value to contributors? Why has it not reverted to a passive management strategy?
Despite managing one of the world’s largest public pension funds, the CPPIB appears largely insulated from rigorous independent scrutiny. CPP contributors deserve transparent oversight of investment performance, governance and compensation.
It is time for the CPPIB to publicly explain whether its complex structure and policies are best for serving contributors and pensioners effectively. A serious, independent public review is warranted.
R. Peter Weedon Orillia, Ont.
Literary allusion
Re “Montreal author Chanel Sutherland defends her writing as human after AI detector flagged prizewinning story” (May 23): Chanel Sutherland points out that the telling of her story is “rooted in Vincentian oral storytelling tradition, which by nature is formulaic and relies on repetition, rhythm, and patterned language as core elements of their structure.” These characteristics were apparently the giveaway for the artificial intelligence used by her accusers.
This technique of storytelling reminds me of the Iliad, a discourse on the Trojan war, written by Homer hundreds of years after the supposed event. If somehow Ms. Sutherland did indeed use AI, I would have to conclude that Homer received AI assistance from aliens.
Irwin Walker Hamilton
Ends well
Re “Celebrations of life, more informal and intimate than traditional funerals, are on the rise” (Pursuits, May 23): So-called traditional funerals are pitted against contemporary celebrations of life, as though the two are mutually exclusive. There is another way forward.
Having helped hundreds of families plan end-of-life rituals for loved ones, my experience is that the same event can meaningfully celebrate a life – and all life – while also acknowledging the reality of loss. Making space for both aspects is necessary for our well-being.
Fortunately, two other articles (“I refuse to find personal growth in my daughter’s death” and “For my mother, and myself, a final journey home” – Opinion, May 23) offer compelling evidence of the need to balance celebration with the reality of grief.
Michael Brooks Reverend, Port Nelson United Church; Burlington, Ont.
At the funeral service for my mother in Edmonton, there was a slideshow depicting her life. The presentation had just started when our four-year-old grandson looked up and whispered, “Does this have a happy ending?”
I figured that dying at 91, following a period of pain-free decline stretching over only a few weeks, amply fit the definition of a happy ending
Paul Thiessen Vancouver
..................................................................................................................................
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