Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Try to keep letters to fewer than 150 words. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com
.................................................................................................................................................
We can walk, too
NAFTA negotiations are not going well. It seems obvious these talks are all about getting a better deal for the United States; Donald Trump has made it clear that if he does not like what he sees, he will withdraw from the North American free-trade agreement.
Excluding oil, the United States runs a trade surplus with Canada, and Mr. Trump wants a bigger one. It appears his negotiating team wants a U.S.-only procurement policy, wants us to back away from our agriculture stabilization programs, and wants to have Chapter 19, the trade dispute mechanism, negated, a provision which was said to be our most important need in earlier free trade debates. In addition to NAFTA, the Americans likely want softwood lumber put on the table. If this is true, we should strategically say no, that's not for negotiation and walk way.
Walking away would put the ball in their court. The NAFTA requires six months notice if a member wants out. In this period, you can expect alarm bells to go off in corporate America and in the U.S. Congress, which could dramatically change the picture.
Exiting NAFTA could be painful, but in this era of globalization we will, as before NAFTA, be America's biggest trading partner.
New markets will open; most importantly, we'll be able to plan our economy and set policies without the restrictions of NAFTA and U.S. bullying.
Ron Brydges, St. Catharines, Ont.
.......................................................
Take a just approach
Re Case Of Indigenous Drug Smuggler Puts Mandatory Minimum Sentences On Trial (Oct. 12): Although the federal government is to be commended for its broad, energized consultation process, it is disappointing that it has not dealt with the mandatory minimum sentence issue.
It's past time to implement an often-suggested idea: Except in cases of murder, where mandatory life imprisonment is our principled substitute for the death penalty, the Criminal Code should be amended with an exemption provision. This would recognize the faith we have in an overwhelmingly impressive judiciary and solve the problem of tinkering and continued litigation.
Where a mandatory minimum is otherwise prescribed, the court – if persuaded on the basis of the evidence – could exercise its discretion and impose a different sentence, giving the reasons for the decision. This would immediately address such issues as mental illness, addictions, vulnerable offenders, and importantly, vital Indigenous concerns. These have been long ignored and suffocated by mandatory minimums, which rigidly strip courts of the obligation to individualize a sentence.
Where incarceration is called for, it would still result, but where it is not, judicial discretion would be preserved – a just, indeed sensible, approach.
William Trudell, Canadian Council of Criminal Defence Lawyers
.......................................................
Mandatory minimum sentences are applicable to all those convicted of certain offences; how does this illustrate "an outsized effect on individuals with Indigenous backgrounds"?
To give a "poor, uneducated, drug-addicted aboriginal person" a reduced sentence because he/she fits that description smacks of discrimination against all the offenders who do not.
David Poissant, Burlington, Ont.
.......................................................
Press-freedom chill
Re Don't Let Trump Silence The Media (Oct. 13): The news media are under assault in the United States to an extent not seen since the Nixon administration. What saved the day then was the Supreme Court, which in several key decisions strongly reaffirmed press-freedom guarantees afforded by the First Amendment.
Those decisions still stand.
But as the court is incrementally reshaped by new Republican appointments, and as the Trump administration's battering of journalists reaches new heights, a more conservative bench could "read the election returns," as the saying goes, and change direction.
Such a change would threaten the U.S. media, but the strong U.S. influence on Canada could also have the same effect here.
Although Canada's Constitution provides press-freedom protection, Canadian journalists have traditionally skated on thinner legal ice than our American counterparts. That means people here need to be more vigilant than ever to safeguard the free press that Canadians now possess as a democratic birthright.
Colin Languedoc, Toronto
.......................................................
Catalan nationalism
Re As Spain Twists, Europe Trembles (Oct. 12): How does one dialogue and negotiate with a party that holds on to nationalist myths as history, and to non-negotiable and incontestable rights?
Spain's central government will have to have a dialogue with representatives of the Catalan region who include not only separatists but those who wish to remain as a part of Spain, perhaps with more autonomy. Because international opinion bears on this dialogue, the international and Spanish press need to inform readers of the nature and risks of Catalan nationalism. This may help convince separatist politicians to make more realistic demands.
Federico Allodi, Toronto
.......................................................
A foolish consistency
Into what strange knots we twist ourselves. Decades after thespians and flight attendants battled to end gender-specific titles of "actress" and "stewardess," Prof. Mary Valentich is pleased female academics can have their gender acknowledged, should they achieve emeritus status (Words, Mastered – letters, Oct. 13). And because the Anglo-Norman term "chief" has negative connotations for Indigenous people, they will continue to use it to describe their leaders rather than replace it with an Indigenous term – but the rest of us will stop using it for leadership titles. Is this what is meant by the expression "a foolish consistency"?
Anita Dermer, Toronto
.......................................................
Loopholes, doo-doo
Governments act in strange ways. When they want people to act in certain ways, say, take risks and invest in small companies, they create tax changes called "incentives." When this works, those who don't take the risks start to squawk and the incentives suddenly become "loopholes."
We put up our house as collateral for a loan to start a small business 25 years ago which now has 250 employees – all paying taxes. Why would any government want to mess with something that's working – including an economy that's roaring along at 4- to 5-per-cent growth? Call this what it is: social engineering.
Paul McCrea, Vancouver
.......................................................
Congratulations for the cleverly crafted sentence in your editorial, Taxing Our Patience (Oct. 11).
Most of us no doubt bleated out "the *#*# is going to hit the fan" when we read about Revenue Canada's plan to tax employee discounts. Your editorialist kept it clean, yet cheeky, noting, "ceiling fans everywhere suddenly needed to be cleansed and sanitized."
George Mather, Brockville, Ont.