U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with technology leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Aug. 19.Jacquelyn Martin/The Associated Press
Now what?
Re “Canada at ‘war,’ will retaliate after trade talks with U.S fail, Carney says” (Online, Aug. 22): Good for Mark Carney and his team for standing up to Donald Trump and refusing to be bullied into a bad deal.
We knew this was coming. Mr. Carney told us to brace for difficult times.
We’ve seen this before. Mr. Trump’s 11th-hour tactics were hardly a surprise.
So now Canada gets on with it. There will be pain, but spending the next two years hanging on every whim from the White House would cost us far more. This is our chance to find out what we’ve had hiding under our toques all along.
Meanwhile, Mr. Carney is looking across oceans and toward new partners rather than waiting for Washington to decide our future. And November is coming quickly: It looks like it may be chillier down south than up north this year.
Rodney Beatty Sarnia, Ont.
Mark Carney may have explained why talks failed, and the last-minute American demands may well have been unacceptable. But explaining failure is not the same as solving the problem.
Canada cannot afford to walk away from negotiations with its largest trading partner and leave no clear path back to the table. This is not the time for political pride, posturing or blame games. Canadian farmers, manufacturers, forestry workers, businesses and families will ultimately pay the price if these tariffs continue.
I believe a strong government keeps negotiating. It defends Canada’s interests, compromises where reasonable and returns to the table again and again until an acceptable agreement is reached. Walking away is not strength, getting the job done is.
For negotiations that were described only days ago as being “very close,” their collapse signals a serious failure of government. Canadians deserve much better.
Patricia Gray Calgary
Any country that cannot find an equitable, mutually beneficial trade agreement with Canada is probably not looking for one.
Such an agreement requires respectful give-and-take in negotiations. Without respect and with an insatiable need to take, there can be no such agreement.
Mark Carney did the right thing.
Linda Chamberlayne Kelowna, B.C.
Too little, too late
Re “Americans push back on anti-Canada campaign” (Report on Business, Aug. 21): It feels a bit early for the American apologists to come out of the woodwork.
The overriding American reactions I have seen to their country’s ongoing attacks on Canada have been breathtaking ignorance, indifference, opportunism and the occasional half-hearted sorry.
Their overall silence when it matters continues to echo loudly and should be remembered when we think about our American “friends.”
Allen Sutherland Ottawa
Push back
Re “The UNHCR is goading the U.S. into pulling its funding – and putting itself in existential risk” (Aug. 18): The global refugee regime is a mess and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees bears some responsibility for it.
But it is argued that the current High Commissioner “signalled his preference for the status quo” by refusing to appoint Donald Trump’s candidate, an anti-asylum Heritage Foundation analyst, as his deputy. To the contrary, I find this decision was a break with the status quo of anointing as deputy high commissioner anyone put forward by the United States, the agency’s major funder, regardless of their qualifications. If anything, it should be a signal that he has more courage than his predecessors.
It is also suggested that the “best way to prove UNHCR is reformable” would be to have not one, but two deputies, only one of whom would be chosen by the U.S. This from a contributor who (rightly) laments that UNHCR has become a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy?
James Hathaway Professor emeritus, international refugee law; Vancouver
More on gender dysphoria
Re “On gender dysphoria” (Letters, Aug 19): The call for evidence-based care is crucial. However, how we interpret and apply that evidence is equally important.
When a letter calls for more research while making what I find to be misleading claims about existing research, it risks distracting from the main goal: ensuring youth receive proper care and support.
While research on the long-term effects of puberty blocker use is ongoing, we should not allow these uncertainties to fuel political rhetoric and divisive narratives. We should listen to youth, their families and their doctors and ensure decisions are made through careful, individualized assessment.
As a resource worker supporting 2SLGBTQ+ youth, I have seen firsthand the harm that stigmatizing language, transphobic narratives and rejection can cause. Public discussion should remain supportive, particularly as transgender people face increasing hostility and political scrutiny.
Health Canada should prioritize rigorous research, informed consent, individualized assessment and long-term follow-up – not political pressure from either side.
Madeline Stead Toronto
The Cass Report, which was used as evidence for the British puberty blocker ban, has been widely criticized. It consolidates data from seven systematic reviews, which have each been found to have a high risk of bias in a study published last year in BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Recent data on puberty blockers tends to show low regret rates. A systematic review recently published in the International Journal of Transgender Medicine consolidated evidence from 27 studies on discontinuation and regret in adolescents receiving puberty blockers.
The overall regret rate for use of puberty blockers was 1.2 per cent of 916 cases and the discontinuation rate was 4.5 per cent. Compared to discontinuation and regret rates for other medical interventions, these are low numbers.
When the evidence base is complex and evolving, cherry-picking studies risks misrepresenting the evidence and misleading the public.
Karyn Anderson Toronto
Imagine that
Re “I can’t picture things in my mind, but I still have a vivid imagination” (First Person, Aug. 17): It took me 60 years to realize i could not form mental images.
As a child, I was bad at those spatial ability tests such as determining what an irregularly shaped piece of cardboard would fold into. But I didn’t care, and my “deficit” was never investigated.
All the descriptive imagery in fiction was lost on me – boring, I thought – so I stopped reading for pleasure for many years and eventually gravitated to non-fiction. It wasn’t until a science magazine published an article on aphantasia that the light came on, though only figuratively, of course.
I started experimenting: I couldn’t picture my childhood home of 22 years, the face of my wife of 35 years, the Mona Lisa, the Eiffel Tower or a simple chair.
On the bright side, that wife of now 40 years never has to worry that I’m picturing anyone else when I’m not supposed to be.
Rudy Buller 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