Prime Minister Mark Carney on July 21 in Ottawa.Justin Tang/The Canadian Press
On the other hand
Re “Canada ready to get tougher…" (Editorial Cartoon, Aug. 7): Excuse me, but this cartoon should be reversed given the masterful trade negotiating stance of Mark Carney and negotiating skills of Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Dominic LeBlanc.
Canada’s fist should be squeezing Donald Trump, not the other way around – and the tattoo should be a maple leaf.
Fran O’Heare Kingston, Ont.
On the ground
Re “Canada’s diplomats have been dispatched on a new mission” (Aug. 3): New mission?
Thirty years ago, I was appointed political and economic counsellor to our mission in New Delhi. My main job was to promote better economic relations, negotiate agreement to facilitate trade and inform Canadians of the rapid growth of the Indian economy. My junior officer handled political issues.
Progress was painfully slow, partly because Indian public and private decision-makers deeply resented Canada’s “values-based foreign policy” – that is, being lectured on how to run their affairs. They were well aware of Canada’s treatment of Indigenous peoples, federal incursions into provincial jurisdiction and dependence on the American nuclear umbrella. They were well aware that there is no comparison between our relative experiences as British colonies.
If Canada is no longer lecturing India (and others) on how to live their lives, perhaps trade can reach the huge potential it has missed for decades.
Ed Whitcomb Ottawa
Say it ain’t so
Re “The dairy sector is lobbying hard in USMCA talks. The government didn’t want you to know” (Report on Business, Aug. 5): Gosh, what a surprise. What outrage that the Canadian dairy sector, which sits dead in the crosshairs of U.S. trade irritants, should be audacious enough to lobby the government to act in its best interests.
We are left to believe that the Canadian auto, steel, aluminum, lumber and other industrial sectors are not doing the same thing, by invitation no less. Of course a sector is going to advocate for its survival.
And why shouldn’t it? Statistics Canada’s 2018 report “Protein sources in the Canadian diet” ranks dairy the runaway leader, with 94 per cent of Canadians consuming dairy on a daily basis. Meat is in second place at 63 per cent.
A national system of small independent producers across Canada should be essential to the security, domestic control and sustainability of our protein supply chain. As such, it plays a vital role in the larger scheme of Canadian sovereignty.
Montague Doyle Ottawa
Forest for the trees
Re “How Canada can better protect its forests” (Aug. 4): This plan to clear “unhealthy” trees and remove “diseased and dead wood” sounds more like woodlot management than boreal forest protection. Where are all the insects and other invertebrates supposed to live?
In this vision, insects appear only as a menace, but they also support the entire food web of that ecosystem. Moreover, we know that insect populations are crashing.
Extracting more “economic value” from the boreal forest is unlikely to protect it.
Glenn Parsons Guelph, Ont.
Poor outlook
Re “Rising cost of low-end rental units driving increase in homelessness, report shows” (Aug. 6): Although the cost of housing is certainly a major contributor to homelessness, it seems incomplete without wage data.
In 2018, minimum wage in the example city of Hamilton was $14 an hour; today it is 25.7 per cent higher at $17.60. At today’s rate, factoring in taxes, employment insurance, Canada Pension Plan, etc., that is roughly $2,200 for a full-time minimum wage worker in four weeks.
This is the situation for many: They’re homeless, but they’re not unemployed. They are the growing number of “working poor” forced to make difficult financial decisions just to survive.
Despite a Bank of Canada calculator that tells us a “basket” of goods is 26.5 per cent higher than it was in 2018, in the real world, from gas to food and many other goods and services, the difference feels much higher.
Another part of the solution may be to calculate what a reasonable living wage is and require employers to pay it.
Art Dewan Kentville N.S.
On MAID
Re “TikTok creator who documented her life with young-onset Alzheimer’s dies by MAID” (Aug. 3): The minority who raise their voices against advanced directives for medical assistance in dying worry that, at the time of the procedure, individuals may not be able to understand what is happening. But I believe this is precisely why advanced directives are so important.
They respect that a person’s previously expressed competent wishes should continue to guide their care after they have lost the ability to communicate. Our health care system already accepts this principle in the lifesaving context (young children or individuals in acute mental health crises, for example) where well-established ethical, medical and pharmacological approaches are carried out compassionately and safely.
It seems reasonable to expect that similar protocols could be developed to address exceptional situations in which individuals demonstrate momentary confusion about their choice of a life-ending medical procedure.
Mary King-Lyons Oakville, Ont.
Hardly working
Re “Robots don’t shop” (Letters, Aug. 3): Further to a letter-writer’s pithy truth regarding robots, Social Credit founder C. H. Douglas once said that a machine can’t buy back that which it produces, hinting at an argument Karl Marx made regarding the organic composition of capital.
As automation and machines continue to replace human labour, both intellectual and physical, the “army of unemployed” will grow along with the downgrading of employment. Are we not seeing that now, along with it being accelerated by artificial intelligence?
Robert Milan Victoria
In the details
Re “The CAF’s new public ‘prayer ban’ is not an attack on religious freedom” (Aug. 6) and “Church and state” (Letters, Aug. 7): Much like the most recent change to our national anthem – “in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command” – perhaps we can now change the words “God keep our land glorious and free” to “we’ll keep our land glorious and free.”
This small change would put the onus to protect our country on all of its citizens.
Carole Gilbert Oakville, Ont.
God is actually a Johnny-come-lately to our national anthem, added under the watchful eye of Pierre Trudeau in 1980.
Before that, we would happily and simply sing “O Canada, glorious and free.”
Could it be time to change it back?
Scott Kennedy 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