Steven Guilbeault at the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa in June, 2025.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Put it diplomatically
Re “Marco Rubio aims to rid Cuba of the Castros, once and for all” (Opinion, May 23): Forgive me for being confused here, but how does the Trump administration just take over another country?
I am no fan of the Castro government and the pain it has inflicted on its people since 1959. But I thought we had the International Criminal Court acting on behalf of the world to help citizens defenestrate inept governments or monsters who pretended to govern their countries.
It takes time, but the ICC has intervened successfully on a number of occasions. Why doesn’t the Trump administration work with it to legitimately rid Cuba of Raúl Castro?
Unfortunately, the United States nor Cuba are party to the ICC. Instead, the U.S. will likely use deadly force, rather than diplomacy, to remove a leader it doesn’t like and pretend to run yet another country.
A nice mess.
Cathy Griffin Burnaby, B.C.
Performance review
Re “Guilbeault plans to exit politics, pursue climate fight in ‘different way’ ” (May 28): What a great day to see Steven Guilbeault leaving Canadian politics.
I have lived through the divisiveness he has caused during his time in Ottawa, where his uncompromising ways are in large part to blame for the separatist movement in Alberta. While I am a proud Canadian and Albertan, I am empathetic to Alberta separatists when politicians such as Mr. Guilbeault are willing to sacrifice industries and economies he doesn’t like, even if it means breaking up the country.
Life is a journey of compromises, but it is one Mr. Guilbeault failed to take. Thank goodness we now have a Prime Minister who understands.
David Field Calgary
I’m not sad to see Steven Guilbeault go. He always seemed to be of the wrong time and wrong place.
Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we need to act on it. But do we need to act so harshly?
With Mr. Guilbeault, it was so black and white with all-or-nothing solutions. He targeted Canada’s oil industry and especially Alberta’s oil sands. He ignored criticism of his policies arising from oil-producing provinces.
It seems Mr. Guilbeault couldn’t see how Canada could leverage its oil production capabilities to finance the country’s transition to clean energy. Moving Canada off its dependence on fossil fuels has always been a journey, not just a final destination.
With the existential crisis that Canada now faces, this is neither the time nor place to be pushing an environmental agenda that hobbles, rather than builds upon and supports, one of Canada’s strengths.
David Weir Edmonton
The economy will be bad, then good, then bad, then good again. Prime ministers will come and go.
The carbon released when we burn fossil fuels, however, will persist in the atmosphere for thousands of years. It will warm the planet and harm humanity for generations to come.
Steven Guilbeault entered government to try to nudge Canada toward a more sustainable path. For his efforts, he was vilified. A serious man, speaking truth to a country not ready to listen.
James Worrall Ottawa
Problem-solving
Re “Don’t give Alberta separatists space to gain traction, Stéphane Dion warns” (May 28): The real elephant in the room regarding the Alberta referendum is that neither the pro or con side for separation have any proposed solutions for the years of grievances that have stoked the problem.
Right now I hear just the noise of polarization, with no adults stepping in to do the hard work of actually solving problems and forging a better Canada. The country needs a captain and teammates willing to do more than offer polarization.
Where can we find such people?
Chris Tworek Calgary
Bigger picture
Re “Will Danielle Smith’s secession referendum question get around an Alberta judge’s ruling?” (May 23): Judges can pause government decisions for judicial review. While the principle is well-established, expanded Indigenous claims massively increase the scope. This should be the real lede out of Alberta.
Indigenous groups inhabited most of Canada pre-colonization. If claims to most land are constitutionally cognizable, then a huge swath of executive and regulatory decisions will trigger the duty to consult – and opportunities for judicial review.
I see an implicit conflict of interest: As more claims are recognized by judges, the supposedly neutral judiciary gains de facto power in policymaking.
The Supreme Court has been careful to say the duty doesn’t apply to legislation (Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada, 2018), but in the executive and regulatory spheres, the practical centre of gravity is shifting. See: exactly what’s happening now.
The relationship between legislatures and courts, being redrawn via Indigenous issues, may well prove a bigger constitutional issue than separatism.
Daniel Boltinsky Toronto
Key takeaways
Re “Pensions need rules to require more disclosure on investments” (Report on Business, May 22): In my 25 years of presenting pension information seminars, the topic of long-term benefit security vastly outweighed any concerns over rates of return.
Pension plans have several benchmarks they use for investment returns, funding requirements and sometimes solvency considerations, all of which are not particularly useful for plan members. To suggest that members are not provided with enough disclosure on the investment process may be relevant in California, but I can say it is definitely not the case for public sector pension plans in British Columbia.
Plan sponsors are provided with detailed investment proposals that enable them to make informed asset allocation decisions. It would be inaccurate, and insulting, to imply high-income investment personnel are being less than forthright about their perspectives on investment strategies.
There is nothing that the Maple Eight pension plans can learn from this proposed U.S. legislation.
Paul Martin White Rock, B.C.
Strike out
Re “Employers press Ottawa to curb strike activity in key federally regulated sectors” (Report on Business, May 22): When economic uncertainty arises, leave it to executives earning seven figures to run to Ottawa to impose restrictions on the collective bargaining rights of workers.
Besides being a constitutionally enshrined right, history has shown that when governments intervene regularly in collective bargaining, companies have no incentive to bargain in good faith when they can rely on government to bail them out.
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 doing business.
There is something inherently unjust in this argument.
John Watters Ottawa
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
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Raúl Castro’s first name.