Prime Minister Mark Carney talks about the trade dispute with the U.S. at the Davie Shipyard in Levis, Que., on Monday.ANDREJ IVANOV/AFP/Getty Images
How did we do?
Re “No deal was better than this deal. Mark Carney was right to call Donald Trump’s bluff” (Report on Business, Aug. 24): In its purest form, free trade, by definition, involves a win-win proposition.
But Donald Trump only seems to understand win-lose – he must win and the rest must lose. By imposing this imperative, he has made world trade lose-lose.
By pulling out of “negotiations” with the United States, the Prime Minister deserves our support for refusing to participate in yet another Trump-led farce on the world stage.
The rest of the trading world, perhaps led by Canada, should address the American people directly – ideally on primetime television – on the economic facts of life.
J. David Murphy Barrie, Ont.
Ottawa must feel that we have the upper hand when compared to the economic muscle in the European Union, Japan and elsewhere. Yet they were able to put together decent trade agreements.
Did the Canadian team not look at the statistical data? We are fighting back with a slingshot, so we should better understand who and what we represent before shouting at Washington and putting elbows up.
It seems we have lightweights handling negotiations.
Jorge Stathos Toronto
Re “Ottawa readies tariff-relief plan for businesses” (Aug. 24): Mark Carney promises support for Canadian industries affected by Trump tariffs. I agree with this approach, but I implore the government to include demands that this support be used for things such as improvements to production or opening new markets.
If it is used to keep prices down in order to retain American customers, then Donald Trump will be right: Canada pays the tariffs.
Kevin Howes Burlington, Ont.
Coast to coast to coast
Re “As premiers rally behind Carney in trade dispute, Alberta’s Smith questions retaliation plan” (Aug. 24): Canada’s position in trade negotiations is weakened when political forces within the country appear more interested in aligning with American-style illiberal politics than in defending Canadian interests.
In Alberta, separatist influence within the governing party raises serious concerns about whether Canada can present a united and credible front at the bargaining table.
The federal government should stop appeasing separatist movements that undermine national unity and consider stronger measures, including an export tax on oil, to protect Canada’s negotiating leverage and economic sovereignty.
Michael Hendzel Edmonton
It is generally understood that Canada will endure great pain in the trade war with the United States – and two provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan, will suffer the least. Those same provinces are also the only ones still selling American alcohol.
It would cost them next to nothing to join with the rest of the country in banning U.S. booze and send the message that the country stands united.
Over to Danielle Smith and Scott Moe.
Phil Ford Ottawa
Drinks on us
Re “Canada, it may come back to the shelves, but do not buy the U.S. booze” (Aug. 21): “You know where the creamiest, butteriest Chards come from? California.”
Many of our own B.C. wineries produce very oaky and buttery Chardonnay. Opening our own trade borders would make buying Canadian easier and enable us to continue sending a message south of the border.
Erica Allen Toronto
I suggest we collectively rethink the boycott-America ethos. While the underlying philosophy is sound – I’m all for avoiding the likes of red state Florida oranges and Kentucky bourbon – I do think that boycotting California wines is counterproductive.
In the first place, many are very good, well-priced and quite different from Canadian wines, thus avoiding them amounts to self-flagellation. Secondly, California is a solidly blue state and Canadians should support the resistance by buying things that Donald Trump likely does not want us to buy.
Indeed, of those applauding removal of California wines from Ontario shelves, Mr. Trump is probably the most delighted.
Mike Baird Kingston
In defence
Re “The hunt for a Liberal defence plan” (The Sunday Editorial, Aug. 23): It is difficult to read about Canada’s commitment to a massive increase in defence spending without juxtaposing the newly reinvigorated trade war with the United States. And not just the trade war, but the underlying Trump attitude that Canada is less a partner and more a vassal state.
Up to 75 per cent of Canada’s spending on military goods goes to the U.S. That pattern, that dependency, is part of the core of Canada’s subservience to the U.S.
Canada’s new defence industrial strategy, which aims to do more domestically and de facto diversify from the U.S. is bang on.
Robert Walsh Cavan Monaghan, Ont.
Re “Trade war could affect defence relationship between Canada and U.S., experts warn” (Aug. 24): A former deputy commander of NORAD argues that the F-35 fighter jet is the best option to defend North America. Are experts looking forward or historically?
My limited observation of the employment of fighter aircraft in current conflicts has been to attack, not defend. The United States used F-35s and other aircraft to attack Iran, but the aircraft have not been a defence against the drones and missiles of Iran’s response.
In the Ukraine-Russia conflict, fighter aircraft do not seem to be playing a significant role. Drones, missiles and air-defence systems using the same are the weapons of choice.
Are we repeating the mistake of nearly a century ago? Is the F-35 today’s Maginot Line?
John Rickards Oakville, Ont.
Red flags
Re “Smith says Alberta could have a binding referendum on secession in early 2027” (Aug. 22): Given that Alberta does not yet have sufficient staff to supervise voting stations and foreign actors are actively intervening to influence the outcome, how could anyone take the results of this referendum, whether for or against separation, seriously?
Surely Danielle Smith can find another way to shore up her leadership of the United Conservative Party rather than continuing with this farce.
Martha Musgrove Ottawa
Hard to see
Re “The trade cold war suddenly turns hot again” (Aug. 24): In Mark Carney’s masterful speech to Canadians, he stated that sometimes the American signature on agreements was “written in pencil.” That’s an insult to pencils, used in artwork that has endured for centuries.
In my view, the more accurate image is of disappearing ink.
Lise Hendlisz 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