Bravo to Ontario Premier Doug Ford, standing up for Canada.

The Ontario government’s advertisement which aired in the U.S., especially during the initial games of the World Series, was brilliant. It spoke directly to American citizens and was quintessentially Canadian: nothing but polite. It was effective, too. It did catch U.S. President Donald Trump’s ire, but given it was too close to home, using wise words by well-respected former president Ronald Reagan to raise serious concerns about tariffs. Ford’s aplomb contrasts starkly with Prime Minister Mark Carney, who can be generously described these days as “elbows down.”

Despite all the budget hubbub, Carney’s tactics with the U.S. appear protracted and ineffective, with “backing down” becoming his hallmark. The European Union has a deal. Mexico has at least a partial deal. We do not. Some have blamed Ford for the suspension of talks, but U.S. officials confirmed the ad alone was not the cause, further indicating progress was slow. This undermines Carney’s claim that a deal had been imminent. The situation also perfectly suits Trump as we face a constant drip of job-loss announcements going south.

Carney’s apology to Trump is also at odds with fiery rhetoric he employed during the election. In a broadly aired story last March, including on BBC, he stated, “My government will keep tariffs on until the Americans show us respect.” That did not transpire. He also disparaged, “the person who worships at the altar of Donald Trump will kneel before him, not stand up to him.”

On board with rail proposal

Re: Commuter line proposed in rail relocation talks (Nov. 11)

I like the idea of building a commuter rail corridor between Winnipeg and Gimli. It makes sense in a lot of ways.

I’m thinking while they’re at it, how about expanding the corridor to accommodate bicycle traffic? Naturally there has to be a buffer between the trains and the bikers, however it’s doable if there’s the intent to do so.

I sometimes wonder if humanity is just a series of badly edited takes. Some people march, some legislate, some argue online like prophets with Wi-Fi. Me? I prefer the slow way. The kind that happens over burnt coffee, years of awkward silences and the steady work of trying not to mistake love for agreement.

My mother once bought me a book of quotes for 25 cents at a garage sale. On page 32, Desmond Tutu whispers, “My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together.”

That line should have been printed on every family dinner table, especially ours.

I think of Richard whenever I read it. Richard with the kind eyes and doomsday opinions. He still calls his mother every Sunday, remembers birthdays I forget and once drove through a blizzard to fix my broken mailbox because “it looked sad.” But for years, he carried stories about people who looked like me — old myths that clung to his good heart like cobwebs that refused to burn.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that one-year mandatory minimum jail sentences for possession of and accessing child pornography (child sexual abuse and exploitation material) are unconstitutional.

In response to this ruling, Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew appears to be calling for the extrajudicial killing of convicted offenders and encouraging vigilante justice saying “Not only should (you) go to prison for a long time, they should bury you under the prison. You shouldn’t get protective custody. They should put you into general population, if you know what I mean.”

Not only do these comments advocate further violence in prisons — threatening the life and safety of those working and incarcerated in these institutions — these comments are an affront to the administration of justice and rule of law.

Mandatory minimum sentences are a blunt legal tool that can prevent a judge from doing their job, which includes considering the individual circumstances of a case in arriving at a fit and proportionate sentence. Not only can mandatory minimums constrain a judge’s consideration of the circumstances of the accused, they can also limit deliberation about the harms to a victim or community in the specific circumstances of an offence.