Morocco's Ismael Saibari clashes with Netherlands' Jan Paul van Hecke in their World Cup clash in Monterrey, Mexico on Monday.Daniel Becerril/Reuters
Throughline
Re “Trump administration declines to renew USMCA trade deal” (July 2): It is amusing to read that U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer believes Canada is sending mixed messages regarding trade negotiations. Mr. Greer appears to blithely ignore the many mixed messages sent by Donald Trump.
He once referred to the USMCA as the “fairest, most balanced and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed.” Now his position is that Canada does not make anything the United States needs. His trade policy tilts like a windmill depending on his mood any particular day.
Apparently the only consistency to these protracted and arduous negotiations is that the U.S. is attempting to bully Canada into accepting a one-sided deal.
Donald MacIntosh Toronto
This land is…
Re “Judge will not reopen Cowichan case to hear from private property owners” (June 30): The judge refused because it “could open the floodgates for numerous other private landowners and persons with commercial or other interests.”
That argument could be turned on its head: If many other people may be harmed by the ruling, it should be even more important that a fair justice system allows their viewpoints to be heard.
Constance Smith Victoria
Reserve lands set aside in the 1850s were misappropriated, including by the very person tasked with ensuring they remained under Cowichan control. The lesson is simple: One can’t sell what one doesn’t own.
Nemo dat quod non habet, a longstanding legal principle in common law, means the purchase of property from someone who has no ownership will deny the purchaser an ownership title, which is exactly what happened here.
Perhaps this is something Alberta separatists should keep in mind as they seek to conduct negotiations regarding lands they do not control, because of treaties between the Crown and First Nations. The land that lies within Alberta’s border is not theirs to offer up in negotiations.
Brenda Taylor Surrey, B.C.
Loud and clear
Re “U.S. Supreme Court reins in Trump and speaks volumes about the role of immigrants in America’s story” (July 1): Many will recognize the strangeness of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose ancestors were slaves, voting to alter the constitutional amendment that made him a citizen. Fewer will notice the dismissal of Indigenous peoples.
U.S. Solicitor-General John Sauer was asked if Indigenous people were legally domiciled in the United States. He replied, “I’m not sure.”
The dismissal of Indigenous people is also evident in the Alberta separatists debate. After Danielle Smith defended separatists seeking American help when David Eby called their actions treason, First Nations chiefs levelled the same accusation. The response from one of Ms. Smith’s senior aides was a diatribe in which he called their arguments “childish nonsense.”
And when First Nations demanded adherence to treaty rights, upheld by a court decision, Ms. Smith referred to it as undemocratic, silencing “hundreds of thousands.”
David Steele Saskatoon
You risk it
Re “If Alberta’s new pipeline has no private backer, it’s Ottawa’s fault. Ottawa must fix it” (Report on Business, June 29): If one believes in an open economy, then why should the Canadian government de-risk a project of questionable economic value, just so large multinational energy companies can suck even more oversized profit out of the country?
Either there is a business case for building a pipeline with private money, or there isn’t. The Canadian government doesn’t need to atone for past sins. It should be up to private investors to navigate the political landscape, which is always changing, and determine if investment is worth it based on projected costs and revenue.
Other than an attempt to keep Alberta in the country, I’ve not seen a compelling reason why my tax dollars should go toward expanding pipeline capacity and increasing oil production. On the other hand, I’ve seen many reasons why not in the form of wildfires, floods and heat domes.
David Laing Brampton, Ont.
Waiting period
Re “The MAID committee got it right on mental illness. But Parliament must go further”(June 29): In 2021, federal consultations found “overwhelming support to remove the 10-day reflection period” for medical assistance in dying, because it offered no meaningful protection and prolonged avoidable suffering when death was already foreseeable.
Competent adults with terminal illnesses may refuse food and fluids, decline treatment or request ventilation be withdrawn. We don’t force competent adults to remain alive or force-feed them for 10 days to prove they really mean it.
Terminally ill patients don’t arrive at a MAID request overnight. It usually follows weeks or months of reflection.
Patient autonomy also applies when families seek to block a MAID decision. Competent adults aren’t required to discuss private medical decisions with relatives. Confidentiality does not disappear because a decision is serious.
Families don’t get to override a capable person’s medical choices. Why should MAID be different?
Autonomy, privacy and nonmaleficence cannot be abandoned because some people are opposed to MAID.
Paul Magennis and Kim Carlson Registered nurses and MAID educators, Vancouver
Easy answer
Re “Should big corporations really be asking me to round up my bill for their charity?” (First Person, June 23) and “Give and take” (Letters, June 30): To all those people looking for excuses not to give to charity at the cashier: When someone says it’s not the money, that it’s the principle, you can bet it’s the money.
Here’s a simple way to resolve the issue: Is this a cause I would like to support? Yes, then give; no, then don’t.
Paddy Fuller Ottawa
Beautiful game?
Re “TSN’s broadcast of Canada’s World Cup knockout debut draws average of 5.2-million viewers” (Sports, June 30): In a telecast following the Netherlands-Morocco match, panel members commented in a joking manner on how physical it was. They seemed to think the aggressive nature of the game, where several players were injured and one was bleeding heavily, made it better.
It is true that some good football was played. But what I also saw was a lot of shirt-pulling, grabbing and pushing from behind, high tackles and players kicked in the head. A comment at the end of the panel conversation: “This is the football we want to see.”
This kind of thinking has much to do with an outdated code that continues to exist in professional sports. It was a sad spectacle to see some of the best football players on the planet resorting to fouling and cheating, and the panel supporting this behaviour.
This is not the football we want to see.
Michael McLenaghen Former Canadian national team member and North American Soccer League player, Ottawa
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