Alberta Premier Danielle Smith in Calgary on Friday.Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press
Lost in translation
Re “Danielle Smith has called a quasi-referendum on secession. It’s best understood as a gambit to preserve her career” (May 23): In her decision to hold a referendum on a referendum, Danielle Smith is asking to ask a question about a question.
I think what she is hoping to accomplish is to ask first what will lead people to say what she wants to hear. Then once the question to be asked is filtered through what she is listening for, what she wants to hear will depend on the art of saying what remains unsaid, and so will persuade the unspoken into the light of day.
Couldn’t be clearer.
Edward Carson Toronto
Re “Poilievre vows to make the case for unity to Albertans” (May 22): Finally, we hear from the Leader of the Opposition and Alberta MP Pierre Poilievre that he is against the province separating from Canada.
Whew. We were beginning to wonder out here in the hinterland if the ever-loquacious Mr. Poilievre had lost his voice, given his silence in recent months as separatists have ramped up their rhetoric. I note that all Alberta Conservative MPs have been equally taciturn.
Mr. Poilievre’s statement that the caucus members “with whom I’ve talked” are “on the side of Canada” isn’t exactly reassuring. Makes one wonder where the Conservative MPs he hasn’t spoken to stand on this matter.
Terrence Downey Calgary
Re “Late fees” (Letters, May 21): These letters from Toronto confirm for me that such viewpoints are singularly the cause of some Albertans wanting to separate from Canada. Who do they think they are, telling Albertans whether the province can develop its own natural resources?
If this pipeline does not go through and there’s not further development, it wouldn’t surprise me if support for separation got closer to 50 per cent.
Albertans do not presume to tell Torontonians how to live their lives. The reverse should also be true.
Bryce Code Calgary
Power play
Re “As Ottawa pursues nuclear, it must not create a new monopoly with AtkinsRéalis in charge” (Report on Business, May 20): This seems a little late, since AtkinsRéalis was already given charge of Candu Energy.
Be that as it may, there are numerous monopolies in Canada, and even former monopolies such as Air Canada, no longer owned by Ottawa but favoured as if it still is.
But that is not the major risk associated with nuclear power. Rather, it is exposing ourselves to the vagaries of our neighbour to the south.
Candu uses uranium mined and processed in Canada. The other reactor designs mentioned require enriched uranium fuel, which we would have to buy from the United States or Russia. As seen with Iran, it is not a process Canada should undertake.
There are lots of other reasons to stick with Candu, a technology which is ours. We know it, it has a great safety record and it’s Canadian.
I would be more concerned if Canada came to depend on the alternatives.
David Kister Kingston, Ont.
There should be no financial support.
Canada’s homegrown Candu reactor was good in its day, but current indications are that it is not saleable without massive government subsidy (as happened for the sale of Candu reactors to Romania in 2023). Other examples of non-saleability are seen with South Korea, which has extensive Candu experience but has begun to abandon the reactor in its expansion program. Ontario Power Generation has also not selected Candu for its next reactor.
Furthermore, I do not believe Candu has the potential for improved saleability. I have not seen major improvements in the technology since the first unit in Pickering, Ont., went online in 1971.
If this technology cannot swim without government support, it should be allowed to sink.
John Riley Guelph, Ont.
Locals only
Re “In most of Canada, municipal voters are not political party animals. How did that happen?” (May 18): What might be the most important institutional factor influencing the lack of political parties at the municipal level: the Constitution.
Section 92(8) gives exclusive authority over municipal institutions to the provinces; colloquially, we often say cities are creatures of the provinces. This means municipal councils must work with whichever party is in power, and it is easier with no partisan labels getting in the way.
Vancouver is the outlier with political parties at the municipal level, making it easier for voters in elections. Vancouver is also an outlier in a more consequential way: British Columbia granted it a city charter with autonomous powers beyond what other municipalities have. The city’s council does not need provincial approval for matters that others must.
Wendy Burton Lecturer (retired), politics, Toronto Metropolitan University and University of Toronto
There is a critical difference between municipal politics and the federal and provincial levels, where party politics are essential.
Governments fall if they lose a confidence vote. Since there is no confidence convention in municipal politics, there is little incentive to organize around parties.
Former Toronto mayor Rob Ford, for example, was repeatedly rebuffed by his council, but he didn’t have to resign; he was elected to a fixed term. That is not the case in federal and provincial politics, where unstable minority governments are common.
Nelson Wiseman Professor emeritus, department of political science, University of Toronto
Ontario’s non-party municipal politics are referred to as “weird” and the much better adjective “distinctive,” to which I would add important and beneficial.
While the policy infrastructure and discipline of parties brings some benefit to governance, partisanship is increasingly bringing a harmful, zero-sum dynamic to both governance and society in general.
In Canada, the legislatures of Nunavut and Northwest Territories also operate without parties. Advantages of non-party systems include being more amenable to simple and powerful reforms such as ranked-ballot voting.
We should recognize the value of Ontario’s non-partisan municipal structure, and consider ways to improve it further.
David Clarry Toronto
Sweet sounds
Re “Celebrated Cree cellist Cris Derksen killed in car accident” (May 18): I had the privilege and pleasure of hearing Cris Derksen’s Still Here, given its world premiere by the Toronto Symphony Orchestra on April 30 at Roy Thomson Hall, where the composer was rightfully celebrated.
Still Here gives classical music hopes of reaching new audiences with relevance and urgency, a work where the concert hall welcomes the often disquieting sounds of the street.
Ms. Derksen’s unique voice will be missed, but their creative contributions will live on.
Chester Fedoruk 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