Letters to the editor, April 27: ‘Canada should negotiate … like a country that knows its own worth’

Open this photo in gallery:

Guess who?

Re “Regime change is the only responsible option to eliminate the threat of Iran” (April 21): The world is menaced by a large country with a messianic and autocratic leader. Its government includes some religious zealots. Many of its citizens adhere to fundamentalist beliefs.

This government is harming its own economy and disrupting that of the world. It attacks boats and small countries. It threatens its neighbours. It persecutes its own protesting citizens and even kills them.

The world desperately hopes for regime change in that country.

Then there is Iran.

J. David Murphy Barrie, Ont.

Our advantage

Re “Canada’s rupture with the U.S. is temporary” (April 23): Donald Trump did not reject capitalism, trade or Canada. He demanded reciprocity and, on that point, we find he has a case.

Canada’s supply management system, Telecommunications Act and digital services tax are not cultural protections, they are market barriers that inflate prices for Canadian consumers while shutting out U.S. competitors.

Mark Carney’s instinct to frame this as a deep structural break is politically understandable. But it is strategically dangerous.

If the relationship is truly ruptured, why negotiate at all? The rupture framing makes it harder, not easier, to sell Canadians on the trade-offs any serious deal requires.

Canada holds real leverage: roughly 172 billion barrels of oil reserves, the world’s largest potash deposits and a border the U.S. economy cannot function without. We should negotiate with confidence, not grievance.

There is no rupture. There is renegotiation. Canada should enter it like a country that knows its own worth.

Ian Lee Associate professor, Sprott School of Business, Carleton University; Ottawa

Larry O’Brien Former mayor, Ottawa; founder, Calian Group

Carrot, stick

Re “Punishing young Canadians for leaving doesn’t solve the problem” (April 20): While one might agree that cages do not work nearly as well as carrots, the proposition that “people are rational economic actors” should not be the basis for judging what kinds of carrots Canada should offer young people.

Psychological research shows that human behaviours are most often rational and consistent, but on a deeper, evolutionary level, to such an extent that these decisions seem irrational by economic criteria. We should look to these psychological and evolutionary drivers to find carrots that entice young Canadians to stay.

In my case, I left my country for Canada in search of adventure, motivated by childhood stories of ice-clad mountains, giant redwoods and lumberjacks, with no intention of staying. It was only sometime later that I discovered what a wonderful country it was, and still is, to raise a family and build a life.

Alan Ball New Westminster, B.C.

If young people are to be punished for leaving Canada for any manner of reason, it seems reasonable to think Canada could be punishing a great many of its citizens.

I’ve worked with dozens of Canadian journalists and medical researchers who moved to the United States. Almost everyone said they missed Canada with every fibre of their being and would return one day. I credit several of them for feeding my interest in Canada.

Most of them said the only reason they left was for opportunities that weren’t as readily possible in a country with a smaller population. But a number of them did go back to Canada while still running the rat race, with skills and experiences (and, one said, a previously unappreciated toughness they might not have acquired at home) that were put to work for Canadian society.

Mary Stanik Tucson, Ariz.

Need to know

Re “The privacy threat that AI poses isn’t what it learns. It’s what it figures out” (April 20): I believe the real issue is that de-identification is ineffective and artificial intelligence companies are inclined to misrepresent aspects of what their applications actually do.

I recently read about a researcher who claims that Anthropic secretly installs spyware when a user installs Claude Desktop. He discovered that the application had given itself permissions to act on his behalf across applications unbidden, potentially gaining access to sensitive information such as credit card details.

Data extraction has long enabled “outputs” as data brokers can already use online information to pinpoint identities, preferences and even recent locations. We’ve been too slow to respond.

The problem I see now is how much more personal information is being extracted, and what new vulnerabilities AI is creating.

Gabriel Rojas Hruška Ottawa

Re “Most doctors say they’ve had to intervene after patients accessed misinformation, survey finds” (April 21): The profiteers behind artificial intelligence are no doubt delighted that increasing numbers of patients are turning to their technology for medical information.

AI is designed to act and sound human, as confident and reassuring as the most trustworthy physician. That being the case, surely AI should be regulated with the same rigour as actual physicians.

And perhaps AI should take a digital version of the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.

Donald Hall Ottawa

Diet advice

Re “Fatty liver? Here’s what to eat and what to avoid” (April 20): Another consideration for those with metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease is coffee.

At least three cups of coffee daily (caffeinated or decaffeinated) has been found to reduce the risk of MASLD and reduce progression to fibrosis for those who have it, though sugar or sweeter remains out of the question.

Whether one should hydrate with it at their next workout, to my knowledge, remains unstudied.

Benjamin Reitzel MD, CCFP; North Bay, Ont.

Wouldn’t it be nice

Re “It would be nice if I wasn’t publicly shamed for my food allergy” (First Person, April 20): I have multiple allergies. None of them are lethal and I do not carry an EpiPen.

I am pleased when I am given a card to put at my place, so that servers know which dishes have been prepared to accommodate me. I have eaten just bread and lettuce multiple times because I don’t want to upset the host.

I do not like it when people ask what happens when I eat a particular ingredient. Strangely enough, I do not eat things I am allergic to. I do not want to say I might faint, vomit or be in pain.

I do not want to be a nuisance. I used to like these foods. That is how I know I am allergic.

What am I supposed to say when people ask how I can live without chocolate or beer or tomatoes or Parmesan or…? The answer is comfortably.

Margaret Bryce 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