Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks to the media at the Legislature in Edmonton in December, 2025.AMBER BRACKEN/The Canadian Press
Anxious in Alberta
Re “Canadian Medical Association applies to intervene in Supreme Court appeal of Saskatchewan’s pronoun law” (March 17): Just over 0.3 per cent of Canada’s population (little more than 100,000) identify as either transgender or non-binary. Why are governments expending so much time and effort trying to block the Charter rights of this small segment of the population?
In the case of right-leaning jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan and Alberta, is it to feed red meat to their base? Invoking the notwithstanding clause seems to me like using a sledgehammer to smite a fly.
No kidding that the Canadian Medical Association considers this an “unprecedented government intrusion” on the rights between a patient and their doctor.
Chris Gates Cobourg, Ont.
Re “Alberta to restrict MAID, including for patients with incurable conditions” (March 19): Danielle Smith’s introduction of legislation to restrict medical assistance in dying looks like yet another contradiction of her purported belief in respecting and protecting individual liberties. Look closer at her actions and it should become clear that it is the liberties she, as the state, believes Albertans should have.
The right to make one’s own choices about medical treatments? Not for trans kids. MAID? Not for the terminally ill without a foreseeable death within the next 12 months. Freedom of speech and association? Not for teachers who want to exercise their Charter right to collective bargaining and to strike.
In Alberta, the state seems to always knows better than the individual. It is happy using the notwithstanding clause to tell citizens which rights they are at liberty to have.
Isabella Tatar Toronto
Alberta’s proposed Bill 18 is a chilling departure from the principles of informed consent. By prohibiting health care providers from initiating discussions about medical assistance in dying, the government would effectively be imposing a gag order.
When I supported my husband through his end-of-life journey, finding accurate information was an immense struggle. This legislation would solidify those barriers, making it a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for legal health care.
Furthermore, attempting to restrict out-of-province referrals and creating “exclusion zones” around objecting facilities challenges the mobility and equity rights guaranteed to all Canadians.
With MAID representing about 4 per cent of deaths in Alberta, this does not seem like a response to a medical crisis, but more so a political one. We should be asking if we are comfortable allowing a province to override the Supreme Court’s definition of fundamental health care rights.
Siobhan Chinnery Calgary
Too late
Re “Doug Ford calls on judge in Umar Zameer case to apologize for accusing police of collusion” (March 19): Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy did not adjudicate the case in the court of public opinion. She was in a court of law.
The Crown chose not to appeal the jury verdict, so I am left to conclude that the system worked. The subsequent OPP report reached a different conclusion about how events unfolded. However there was no interview of the defendant or his lawyer, and the conclusion has not been tested in a judicial setting.
Justice Molloy is not in a position to defend her actions in the court of public opinion, which is as it should be. She owes nobody an apology. The Premier should know this, as should the head of the Toronto Police Association.
Their remedy should be to a judicial council that oversees judges’ conduct, but that sort of responsible behaviour does not garner headlines.
Peter Bennett Toronto
I find the remarks of Doug Ford criticizing Ontario Superior Court Justice Anne Molloy ill-considered and inappropriate.
There are two versions of the event in question: one the subject of sworn testimony before Justice Molloy and one the subject of a report issued by the Ontario Provincial Police. Like many occurrences that happen in a matter of seconds and in highly confusing circumstances, it is ultimately difficult to determine what actually happened.
The facts are best known to those who were present and, as best we can tell, they cannot relate the incident in a consistent manner. Justice Molloy had reason to support her decision and I don’t doubt the OPP are justified in relying upon its report.
My point is that we may never know what happened the day an officer died, but it was highly inappropriate for the Premier to level criticism at the court in these circumstances.
Ronald Carr North Vancouver
It it ain’t broke…
Re “Ontario steps back into the information dark ages” (March 17): The last 37 years have proven the great value of a comprehensive “sunshine law.” Yet the proposed changes to Ontario’s freedom-of-information law represent significant diminution of government accountability.
It was this province that inspired advocates for open government across Canada when the Williams Commission report was published in 1980. Other provinces and territories explicitly built their access and privacy legislative schemes on that model. The oversight scheme contemplated back then has proven to be an essential instrument for making our provincial governments more accessible to citizens.
The negative analysis of the proposed amendments by Patricia Kosseim, Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, should be of concern to all Ontarians.
Gary Dickson Saskatchewan information and privacy commissioner (retired); Rideau Lakes, Ont.
Fine print
Re “Fines for false made-in-Canada claims could chill investment, food manufacturers say” (Report on Business, March 19): I now routinely ignore “made in Canada” signs, shelf tags and displays in favour of examining the product itself and its packaging. I am sure I’m not alone.
As a bonus, I am more aware of what I spend my money on. It would benefit grocers and shoppers alike to stop this type of in-store marketing.
Louise O’Neill Toronto
Get loud
Re “Is there no peace and quiet in public spaces anymore?” (First Person, March 13): Whenever I am tempted to do what this essay-writer felt was necessary – chastise someone for being too loud in a public place – I think back to my younger days.
Being born in 1957 during the peak of the baby boom, my world was one of young people everywhere, pushing boundaries in all manner of ways. Adults no doubt lamented the loss of civility as we rebelliously trampled our way through the 1960s, but it seems to me they were pretty “cool” about accommodating the changes taking place before their eyes.
Jumping ahead 60 years: Even though I don’t partake of social media or even have a “phone” (which, I am informed, is what a cellphone is called these days), I can still find happiness in public spaces. If that means finding another seat a little farther away “from the action,” then so be it. I’m cool with that.
George Parker Cobourg, Ont.
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