Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Minister of Justice Mickey Amery make their way to announce proposed changes to several pieces of democratic process legislation, in Edmonton, on April 29.JASON FRANSON/The Canadian Press
Budget timelines
Re “Finance Minister Champagne suggests Ottawa won’t present budget this year” (May 15): The absence of a spring budget creates an opportunity for Mark Carney to reset the fiscal cycle and bring much needed coherence to the information presented to Parliament.
The mandated and regularly scheduled estimates only provide a partial snapshot of spending, in large part because the discretionary and completely arbitrary budget date is generally set too late in the process, and often after estimates have been introduced.
Better to put the horse before the cart, with a fall budget presenting the fiscal picture for the year ahead. This would allow departments and the Treasury Board to develop approved programs to be included in main estimates on March 1 for the next fiscal year, with updates presented in June, December and March.
The Prime Minister could formalize this logical sequencing by declaring that budgets for the fiscal year beginning April 1 will be presented no later than the preceding Dec. 1.
Brian Pagan, Former director of fiscal policy, Department of Finance; Ottawa
Separate out
Re “We wasted 60 years indulging secessionist fantasies in Quebec. Must we make the same mistake in Alberta?” (May 14): Columnist Andrew Coyne argues there is no moral case for Alberta separating from Canada, and there is no legal case to do so. The political process seems intractable.
There is another complication for Alberta’s project: While Danielle Smith has said Alberta would honour treaties with Indigenous peoples, they are actually treaties with the Crown, signed before Alberta became a province.
Many of the treaties cross over boundaries with other jurisdictions. Is the Premier suggesting that Alberta has the right to sever a treaty?
I doubt the Supreme Court would not think the treaties are single entities and thus not divisible.
Peter Woolstencroft, Department of political science, University of Waterloo
Re “ ‘Playing with fire’: Former Alberta premier Jason Kenney weighs in on separation talk” (Report on Business, May 15): My old friends Jason Kenney and ATCO CEO Nancy Southern make valid points when they say secession talk in Alberta threatens investor confidence, is akin to “playing with fire” and should not receive any oxygen.
But if the aim is to snuff out such a fire and deny it oxygen, exactly how is that to be done? Public statements disparaging secession talk seem to have the opposite effect.
Maybe we should therefore learn something from the firefighting experts who say sometimes the best way to deal with a wildfire is to set a backfire in front of it, so that when it moves beyond a critical point, it has nothing to burn and the backfire extinguishes the wildfire.
Danielle Smith’s facilitation of a referendum to decide whether a question on secession should be put to Albertans is a backfire, and should be understood and supported as such.
Preston Manning Calgary
Danielle Smith has to be commended for her idea of a “sovereign Alberta within a united Canada.”
Frankly we can expand on that by having each province declare sovereignty within a united Canada. That way we’ll all be equal.
It’s a splendid idea which begs the question of why nobody came up with it before until, of course, Ms. Smith had a superlative insight.
Imagine a sovereign British Columbia dealing with a sovereign Alberta. What a thrill it would be.
But then how does this “united Canada” work? I hope Ms. Smith elaborates on the small details of how we can be sovereign within our own provinces, while being united within Canada.
Norman Ostonal New Westminster, B.C.
Danielle Smith says she doesn’t want Alberta to separate, but then makes it sound like there is a crisis in Alberta. She talks about giving separatists their voice, yet I believe their position is a direct result of her actions.
She can’t tell people how badly they’ve been treated, take the feds to court when she doesn’t like a national policy, then act like she had nothing to do with the rise of separatism.
It would take years and millions, if not billions, of dollars to negotiate even a shortlist of what these separatists are asking for (and for which a majority of Albertans never asked for). And what about First Nations lands, which cover a huge portion of the province?
Danielle Smith seems to love making demands. Well, I have a demand for her: Quit wasting our time, money and energy, and start working within the Canadian framework.
Leona Yez Edmonton
During his recent meeting with the U.S. President, the Prime Minister stated that the “owners” of Canada had clearly told him the country was not for sale.
As a Canadian and one of those “owners,“ am I also an “owner“ of Alberta? Pray tell, who owns Alberta?
Don Cameron Regina
Talk about it
Re “Carney signals focus on economy, U.S. relations with new cabinet” (May 14): Poor Nate Erskine-Smith, the Liberal MP who feels “disrespected” after being dropped from cabinet by Mark Carney. Unlike fellow former ministers who took the push from cabinet gracefully, with pride and gratitude for their chance to serve, he went straight to social media.
“But I’m mostly disappointed that my team and I won’t have the chance to build on all we accomplished with only a short runway.” Canadians will never get to see what Mr. Erskine-Smith accomplished on that short runway, but I am certain that he will tell us all about it on his rejuvenated podcast.
Paul LeBel Toronto
Clear the air
Re “Opening the opaque window around pot rules” (Editorial, May 12): With great fanfare and optimism, the Trudeau government legalized cannabis in 2018.
Even before royal assent, the nascent industry clearly said, many times, that many restrictions on cannabis, from licensing through to final sale, would be needlessly challenging. Indeed, if one was to design a new industry model from scratch, it is difficult to envision one that would be worse at optimizing the health of Canadians, eliminating illegal products from the industry and supporting individual businesses.
Health Canada was given the lead on legalization. On more than one occasion, then-health minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor said the success of the new industry was not the government’s concern. It shows.
The question that remains is whether cannabis will be the test bed for innovation and economic growth that this current government claims it wants to see – or at least it could get out of the way.
Brian Sterling, Founding partner, SCS Consulting; Oakville, 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