Alberta separatist supporters listen to speeches at a meeting by Lets Talk Alberta ahead of the Oct. 19th Alberta referendum vote in Calgary, Alta., Oct. 13.Todd Korol/Reuters
Domino effect
Re “The Alberta referendum: a pointless, futile stunt, just like the last one” (Opinion, Oct. 10): Anyone who has ever designed surveys understands that one can bias the outcome by the sequence of questions. This is why we randomize questions in academic studies.
I find the referendum questions leading up to the final question are intentionally designed to push hot-button issues, in an effort to influence the outcome of that final question.
David Roach Professor, department of strategy, entrepreneurship and international business, Dalhousie University; Halifax
Re “Quebec businesses brace for renewed sovereignty debate” (Report on Business, Oct. 13): In 1973, I opened Elliot-Duncan Booksellers on Sainte-Catherine Street in Montreal. It was profitable and I employed eight people.
Over time, talk of separation and its potential impact on my business persuaded me to close the store and move to Toronto in 1976.
In 1983 I opened Fairmount Books, a book wholesaling company that successfully operated with 60 full- and part-time employees, selling to customers in 35 countries. In 2013, I retired.
It appears the great brains in the provinces of Alberta and Quebec, disaffected with all that is remarkable about Canada, are driven by their misguided desires to separate. The mere preoccupation with separatism and the underlying threat to businesses small and large may dramatically harm their economies and citizens’ well-being.
Marty Cutler Toronto
Predictive model
Re “Scientists push for creation of international body to regulate artificial intelligence” (Oct. 13): The proposed body is a good idea in theory, but unlikely to occur for a few reasons.
One, it’s probably too late given what little we are being told about artificial intelligence risks and who is doing the developing.
Two, like the United Nations, certain countries will likely demand veto power over decisions they don’t see as beneficial to their cause.
Given this, any body would effectively do little but meet, discuss and propose policy with little effectiveness. It’s a cynical view, but supported by history.
David Harper Burlington, Ont.
On MAID
Re “Why is Ottawa so hellbent on limiting access to MAID?” (Oct. 14): It is argued that Ottawa is restricting access to medical assistance in dying because politicians are uncomfortable with individual choice. This overlooks a fundamental question: Can autonomy be meaningful when the state cannot ensure access to appropriate care?
Unmet mental health needs, prohibitive costs and lengthy waiting lists undermine claims that patients have meaningful alternatives. This, then, is not about denying the agency of people with mental illness or imposing compulsory treatment. It is about establishing whether a condition is truly irremediable when psychiatric prognosis remains contested and effective treatments may never have been accessible.
Ottawa’s decision to maintain the exclusion indefinitely is therefore a defensible exercise of prudence. Individual liberty deserves protection, but so does the integrity of irreversible medical decisions.
A dignified society should provide care before it offers death as an alternative.
Louis-Philippe Noël Montmagny, Que.
In limiting the expansion of medical assistance in dying to those whose sole underlying condition is mental illness, I believe the government has ignored an individual’s Charter rights to bodily autonomy and the same choices in dying permitted for those with other illnesses.
The government followed the recommendations of a joint House and Senate committee which cited difficulty in proving that a diagnosed mental illness is irremediable or incurable. Many psychiatrists seem reluctant to acknowledge that their specialty is not the exact science which other medical specialties have become.
Despite more than 100 years of research into mental illness, most psychiatric treatments continue to be empirical. For some psychiatrists, it can then become a matter of professional pride to claim that serious mental illness can never be considered incurable.
In deciding whether MAID should extend to mental illness, we should respect the Charter rather than the opinion of some psychiatrists.
E. Robert Langford MD; professor emeritus, faculty of medicine, University of Toronto; Victoria
Out of water
Re “Fish farming in Xinjiang is being sold as proof that technology can overcome geography. The reality is more complicated” (Oct. 9): Open-net pen salmon farms on the northwest coast of British Columbia are criticized for an alleged adverse impact on native salmon populations.
The federal government ordered a complete phase-out and ban of all open-net pen salmon aquaculture in B.C. coastal waters by June 30, 2029. According to the Pacific Salmon Foundation, there are roughly 55 open-net pen salmon farms operating while the federal government and industry negotiate and transition toward closed-containment or land-based systems.
I was hoping that on-land, tank-based salmon rearing facilities might offer a more benign alternative. However, this report discloses the shocking news that the current model of land-based aquaculture is unsustainable, as it uses more ocean fish as feedstock than it produces in edible fish for people.
The solution might be to develop plant-based “meat” to feed to carnivorous fish.
D. B. Wilson Port Moody, B.C.
While this is mainly about China, the good news is that Canada’s salmon farms have a very different story.
From the beginning of the industry 50 years ago to today, annual reporting on our members shows we have moved from 100-per-cent fish-based salmon feed to where an average of 80 per cent is land-sourced, including grains, seed meals, oils and other agricultural proteins. The remaining fish product is 95 per cent from sustainably certified sources, and we’re committed to reaching 100 per cent.
This is remarkable progress. So Canadians can be confident in the sustainable feed practices of Canadian salmon farmers.
Timothy Kennedy President and CEO, Canadian Seafood Farmers; Ottawa
Spending power
Re “Food inflation has been tame recently. That might not last” (Report on Business, Oct. 9): Food prices have risen but the sky is not falling.
In 1969, a household of average income spent about 19 per cent of it on food; today that figure is 11 per cent. The real issue, then, is not the cost of food but the amount of income devoted to housing, transportation and leisure activities.
One could elaborate on the underlying causes, but I will confine myself to one of the driving forces: expectations. I probably sound like a curmudgeon, but not that long ago houses were 1,200 square feet with one bathroom serving usually large families. A restaurant meal was not a regular event, but a very special occasion.
These comments do not apply to lower income individuals. They are truly facing significant inflation in all aspects of their lives.
Ted Wiggans Harvey, N.B.
..................................................................................................................................
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