Alberta Premier Danielle Smith speaks at the annual Canada Strong and Free Network in Ottawa on May 8.Spencer Colby/The Canadian Press
Certain behaviour
Re “Premier Danielle Smith leads a separatist party” (May 13): I adhere to the belief that actions speak louder than words.
In 1994, the Parti Québécois led by Jacques Parizeau came into power in Quebec and, true to his word, he set in motion a referendum on separation. I did not agree with Mr. Parizeau, but I had to respect him since he was clear and unequivocal.
We now have a Premier telling us she wants Alberta to remain in Canada, but her actions cast doubt on her words. She has facilitated a provincial referendum on separation by reducing the number of petition signatures necessary; using the federal government as the enemy even while signing a memorandum of understanding on co-operation; staying quiet on misinformation about the implications of separation; now her response to the recent data breach by chastising the NDP for not telling her.
She should be clear and unequivocal as well.
William Pascal Ottawa
Re “Alberta Data Centre” (Editorial, Cartoon, May 11): As always, Michael de Adder’s cartoon, portraying Danielle Smith asleep on the job after a data theft has been committed, literally on her watch, is sharp, evocative and to the point.
A more accurate scene would be Ms. Smith holding the door wide open for separatists to enter, while one of her senior staff ensures all the lights are on and another holds the bin to wheel away the purloined data.
Making things easy for separatists seems to be the way of things for the Alberta government these days.
Paul Childs Edmonton
Not that high
Re “Canada’s ‘myopic’ energy approach threatens historic opportunity for producers, Cenovus CEO says” (Report on Business, May 7): In the context of a memorandum of understanding signed by the federal and Alberta governments, the head of Cenovus Energy alleges that the government’s focus on climate has made resource development in the country uncompetitive. His comments illustrate to me why it is so hard to get decent climate policy.
The whole purpose is to make egregiously damaging industries uncompetitive. The MOU increases the policy-relevant carbon price to $130 per ton emitted, a modest fraction of the true cost (read: damage) typically estimated at around $300.
In an efficiently governed world, all countries would apply the $130 rate on emissions. But in our real world, when a country wants to do the right thing, a lower than globally optimal tax still earns the ire of its high-emitting industries.
Albert Berry Toronto
Clear justice
Re “Slippery slope” (Letters, May 11): A letter-writer believes that public scrutiny of prosecutorial discretion would amount to the Crown becoming a puppet of the government or the mob.
But the reason to have transparency is to improve the law or processes around it. It is also to ensure equal treatment before the law, so that one person does not get charged with murder, for example, and another a lesser charge under the same circumstances.
Changing the law is a political decision. Without knowledge of the issues encountered during prosecutions, politicians would be blind on how to make improvements.
If the law is meant to serve citizens, then they have an interest in knowing how it is working. If the “mob” demands change, that is called democracy.
Keeping the mob clueless sounds more like a dictatorship.
Jason New Foothills County, Alta.
Know now
Re “For families torn apart by Toronto hospital’s flawed testing, fight continues years later” (May 11): This raises so many issues and emotions. Courts are meant to discover the truth and administer justice. The legal system does not set out to harm children, but in the case of the Motherisk program, it has.
Hundreds and hundreds of children were removed by court order, placed in foster care and, in many cases, formally adopted. It is suggested that fewer than 10 of those permanently removed were ever reunited with their biological parents.
We, as family court judges at the time, were faced with parents without the means and understanding to challenge Motherisk. The so-called expert evidence provided to our courts usually went unchallenged.
There should be no issues with litigation due to Ontario’s Limitations Act. If there is, amend the legislation.
Not only have the rights of parents been violated, but ostensibly so have the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Marvin Zuker Toronto
DIY
Re “Ottawa’s plan to lower CPP premiums today may be regretted tomorrow” (Report on Business, May 5): I endorse the cuts to Canada Pension Plan premiums. In fact, I think contributions to any Canadian pension plan in 2026 should be optional.
Based on the CPP Investment Board’s 2025 annual report, approximately 88 per cent of CPP infrastructure investments are outside Canada. This practice honours its fiduciary duty to pensioners by investing in jurisdictions that incentivize investment and profit. But unfortunately, a new hospital in Texas is meaningless for Canadians aged 18 to 65.
The promise of the modern day pension plan in Canada: “From 18 to 65, your community will rot away but, hey, at least you have a pension.” I will gladly save the management fees and invest in the S&P 500 for it’s annualized 10-year return of about 14 per cent. Over the same time, CPP returned 8 per cent.
Patrice Tomas Vancouver
Two sides
Re ”MAID limits?” (Letters, May 12): Eaton: Susan dear, there are a couple of good MAID letters in The Globe and Mail today. One says that schizophrenia, when voices are screaming inside your head, can be as unlivable as any physical ailment. These patients deserve access to MAID. He’s right.
Another says that some patients with schizophrenia are very suggestible. Such a person cannot give informed consent and should not be eligible for MAID. He is right, too.
Susan: But, Eaton dear, they can’t both be right.
Eaton: And you’re right, too.
Eaton Lattman Toronto
Great outdoors
Re “How did this teen with ADHD find her focus? In a word, birds” (May 9): Many people are discovering or rediscovering the benefits of immersion in nature to their well-being. The other side of the coin, that large cities are harmful to our mental health, is not a new idea.
The pioneering sociologist Georg Simmel wrote in the early 20th century that cities foster weak social ties and individuals need to adapt to a steady bombardment of artificial stimuli, ultimately leading to what he called a “blasé” attitude.
That most of us now live in environments so different from our original natural milieu is what evolutionary psychologists say contribute to different forms of mental illness.
Thomas Johnson Montreal
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