Open this photo in gallery:
New U.S. tariffs target milk, whey and lactose in response to Canada’s supply management system, which limits dairy imports from the U.S. and other countries.Andrej Ivanov/The Globe and Mail
Trade-offs
Re “Trump escalates trade war against Canada with threat to impose 50% tariffs” (July 21): If Donald Trump thinks additional tariffs will pressure Canadians to resume importing and selling American alcoholic beverages, well, think again.
Although he may not believe Canadians are intelligent, we are smart enough to develop other markets for our products.
Luc Lachapelle Hudson, Que.
So California winemakers cheer additional punishing tariffs on Canadians because we will be forced to buy their wine? A better strategy would be asking their government to stop the tariffs, which started the boycotts in the first place.
Cheering for tariffs does not make trading sense, but American culture does not seem to understand the concepts of fairness, kindness and equity, only war and winning.
This Canadian will never purchase California wine or visit the United States ever again. This is not friendship.
Trish Johnston Central Kootenay, B.C.
This must stop. The latest threats confirm to me there are no trade negotiations happening here. There is only extortion.
I have great respect for Mark Carney. He is dealing with an unprecedented situation and attempting to negotiate in good faith. But every concession brings nothing in return except to buy a little more time until Donald Trump makes his next threat.
Why would the United States bother to negotiate? They only have to keep threatening, knowing that Canada will likely concede,
Brenda Pullen Oakville, Ont.
Re “Bets off” (Letters, Oct. 28, 2025): Last year, you were good enough to publish a letter in which I suggested that as a result of our dealings with Donald Trump, “our relationship with the United States will be harsh, distant and purely transactional.” Might I be permitted the minor luxury of briefly saying I told you so?
I concluded my letter with the assertion that “we are a resilient people with vast natural resources. We’ll be okay.” I remain of that opinion.
Michael Royce Toronto
Happier, more productive
Re “America is booming. Canada lags. So why aren’t Americans happier?” (Report on Business, July 20): Thank you for making the case that following the U.S. lead to boost Canada’s productivity isn’t the panacea some experts think it is.
The Globe’s business pages are often full of columns imploring our leaders to, essentially, be more like the United States. Yet we have ample evidence that these productivity gains can come with a price – namely a more unequal society where the rich get richer, worker and environmental protections are devalued and the majority of people are not necessarily better off or happier.
Jeff Zuk Hamilton
Economics is the study of how best to allocate scarce resources, and productivity the measure of resource growth. But “best” and “how much” depend on perspective.
If the perspective is that of society as a whole, Canada beats the pants off the United States. Most Canadians have measurably richer lives in a more free and open society. I suspect that the value to individuals of health care, education and old-age support would sharpen the contrast.
If one’s perspective is that of the wealthiest 10 per cent, 1 per cent or 0.1 per cent, the reverse would be true. So: democracy or oligarchy?
Are we the people the true engine and purpose of the economy? Or does that honour belong only to the lucky, the well-born or the occasional Einstein – and even Einstein wasn’t in the economic 1 per cent.
James Russell Ottawa
In theory
Re “The odyssey of a hypothetical offender” (Editorial, July 20): Reasonable people might find the hypothetical offender concept to be unreasonable, contrived and even silly. But surely the court has been forced to consider this because of the even sillier idea of mandatory minimum sentences.
Laws are written with a range of penalties so that the legal system can consider all the variables in a given case and determine the appropriate sentence. Judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers are experts in assessing these variables and the law. And in the rare cases that they are deemed to have failed, there is an appeal system.
So why would it make sense for politicians lacking legal expertise to intervene with mandatory sentences?
Jim Smith Oakville, Ont.
The courts’ hypothetical offender served his purpose admirably, because this judicial exercise in “creative writing” eventually led to a softening of the arbitrary severity of minimal sentences by allowing judicial discretion. That the “imaginary perpetrator “ persisted so long is the fault of legislators, not judges.
I believe ironclad minimal sentences are inherently unjust. All they are is political theatre, designed to signal a government is serious about law and order, never mind any potential injustice.
Brian Green Thunder Bay
Postgame
Re “World Cup 2026 grabbed our attention at opening kickoff and never let go” (Sports, July 18): I did not play soccer growing up. I regarded the sport as inferior to hockey, football, baseball and tennis.
However, on watching the first game of the 2026 World Cup, I was hooked. I developed great admiration for the skill and stamina of the players, as well as the incredible difficulty of scoring a goal.
What I didn’t like was the pulling, pushing and grabbing of players whenever there was the possibility of breaking away with the ball. Moreover, the grimacing and diving every time a player made contact with one another would not pass muster at a beginner’s acting class.
I appreciate that the World Cup is the foremost playoff in the world of soccer and referees were determined to “let the players play.” But I believe these areas are in need of significant improvement to ensure the continued success and growth of the sport in North America.
Ronald Carr North Vancouver
Would fans like to see football that is actually watchable? Without the cynical fouls and histrionics? Then maybe try watching the great sport of rugby.
Footie should be about the foot. Penalize the goons who crowd the ranks of professional teams.
It wouldn’t be that hard to do. First, issue yellow cards for any fouls that are not legitimate plays for the ball: late tackles, wrapping arms around a player and throwing them to the ground, pushing from behind, etc. A few games of reducing teams to eight players would get the message across
Second, all players except the goalkeepers should be forced to wear thumbless padded mitts. Let’s save the clutching and grabbing for after the game.
Richard Litke Stratford, Ont.
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
Dining and Cooking