Quebec Premier Christine Frechette speaks during an event put on by the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal on Monday.Christopher Katsarov/The Canadian Press
Common people
Re “Alberta and Quebec premiers to discuss economic collaboration between provinces this week” (Online, June 1): To understand Alberta’s referendum frenzy, Canadians outside the province need only recognize that it is Quebec, but in English.
Greg Schmidt Calgary
Quebeckers constitute a nation with their own language, culture and even legal system. They share similar qualities with Bretons, Scots, and Welsh people: All three try to maintain their language, and the last two enjoy a measure of self-governance.
Albertans are not a distinct nationality. They speak the same language as the rest of English Canada and have the same legal system. But it’s true that Alberta has been described as “the Texas of the north,” largely because its leaders have long been beholden to the oil industry.
While I do not want Quebec to secede either, Alberta’s dissatisfactions don’t put these provinces in the same category.
Don Alexander Nanaimo, B.C.
To blame
Re “Central Canadian elites are as much to blame for Alberta’s separatist movement as anyone else” (June 1): I believe the Alberta separatist movement is mostly due to the excessive influence of the wealthy fossil fuel industry and its allies in government and media. Separatists such as Mitch Sylvestre disinform us to strengthen their cause, while our UCP government looks the other way.
With Canada’s equalization program, Alberta’s wealth is not being “channeled to other parts of Canada” – we send more money to Ottawa because we have some of the highest salaries (and, at the same time, the lowest taxes) in the country. Equalization ensures all provinces offer similar public services.
Separatists say Alberta is getting a “raw deal.” The only raw deal I see is the Alberta government’s subversion of democracy that obstructs its renewable energy industry and downloads most of the oil industry’s cleanup costs to provincial taxpayers.
We need a fair and caring society.
Victor Dorian Edmonton
“The Liberals also decided that the fight against climate change required … restrictions on expanding oil-and-gas development in Alberta and Saskatchewan.” I would be fascinated to learn what model of climate action doesn’t involve attacking the crisis at its root: the fossil fuel industry.
What would be a better model, exactly, than restricting the growth of this polluting sector? Should we clap our hands three times and wish for climate change to go away?
Furthermore, if Alberta has a disagreement with federal environmental policies, the problem is usually not with the policies, but with the province continuing to cling to the fossil fuel industry, which it knows should be phased out. It could have started a smooth and economically viable transition to renewable energy a long time ago and prevented disputes like this.
Instead, Alberta has dragged its feet to the point where the federal government has no choice but to step in to protect national interests.
Iain McInnes Ottawa
Whose benefit?
Re “As Canada faces crippling debt, it must do the unpopular thing and cut elderly benefits” (Report on Business, June 1): Yes, Canada needs cash for other items. But the Fraser Institute’s suggested full Old Age Security cutoff of $74,600 takes a cleaver rather than a trimmer to current amounts.
It is one thing to aggressively cut pensions while giving pensioners notice prior to their retirement. It is quite another to cut pensions for seniors who have already retired and made life-changing decisions based on anticipated payments.
The elderly should not be forced to sell their homes, for example. It is egregious to change the rules midgame, especially for single seniors; any cuts should be done judiciously.
And while making changes, isn’t it time to compensate single seniors who do not enjoy the same advantage all couples, including elderly seniors, have in splitting their incomes?
Barbara Yaffe Vancouver
A senior earning $148,000 a year still qualifies for Old Age Security benefits. Meanwhile, there are reports that $10-a-day child care is on the verge of collapse.
When did we become a country that eats its young? This compelling argument deserves to become policy, pronto.
Alex MacKenzie Peterborough, Ont.
Same coin
Re “Strike out” (Letters, May 29): A letter-writer believes that “when unions fight for just wages and compensation, they are called greedy; when executives are given millions of dollars in wages and compensation, it is apparently called just doing business.”
While I am no fan of greedy executives, unions are just as capable of being greedy. And they can be more inclined to resist economic, technological and societal change to preserve jobs (i.e. Canada Post).
Fair outcomes require a balance of power. For unions to have the strength to bargain effectively with management is right and just. But when unions are able to hold an entire economy for ransom, balance is lost.
The idea that management is intrinsically evil and unions intrinsically virtuous is flawed. For the most part, they are just two sometimes opposed groups acting in self-interest. Both can sometimes take it too far, if given the opportunity.
Darryl Squires Ottawa
Write on
Re “AI and the death of the university essay” (Report on Business, May 28): The situation in higher education is even more dire. We know that students can write essays with artificial intelligence, but now professors can (and some do) grade essays with AI.
What are we actually doing here? We are not just facing the death of the essay.
If we don’t get a handle on this technology in short order, AI might in fact portend the death of the university.
Hamish Telford Associate professor, department of political science, University of the Fraser Valley; Abbotsford, B.C.
“No one has yet figured out how to teach students on a mass scale in the age of AI.” May I humbly offer a solution?
In class, have students write shorter five-paragraph essays. This is what I did during my 41 years of teaching at Humber College’s Lakeshore Campus in Toronto.
One week, we prepared for the essay. The next week, students wrote their essays. They were allowed to have notes in point-form only, no complete sentences.
I invigilated as they wrote. As I walked up and down the aisles to check their notes, with an apology, I’d pick up and shred any that contained complete sentences. For those who needed more time, I’d sit with them until they were done.
In the age of artificial intelligence, I’d have no problem with students using it to compose an essay. Of course, somehow they would have to reproduce the robot’s words.
Ben Labovitch Toronto
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