Letters, Aug. 25

Smart to walk away

Re: Canada declines to ratify trade deal (Aug. 22)

Let the finger pointing begin!

The article states that “Canada and the U.S. were unable to put the final touches on a trade deal.”

Final touches could mean many things. They often may be a matter of clarifying or refining the language on agreed-upon points to prevent future issues. It seems, however, that there may have been some last-minute U.S. demands brought to the table. Those could range from strong-arm tactics (i.e., “take it or leave it’) to ‘nibbling’ — a negotiating strategy whereby a deal appears agreed, then one party comes back asking (or demanding) “just one more thing.” The momentum of the negotiation may incline one party to agree, just to get the deal done.

Considering Trump’s style of ‘negotiations’ with Iran, few people will be surprised that these trade talks were also held on shifting ground. The real heart of a deal is when both parties get what they need to continue their working relationship.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is a thinker and wanted a comprehensive, longer-term agreement, while President Trump appears to want ongoing tinkering. In his business career, the president is well known for not living up to agreements. There’s a pattern there. (Remember the CUSMA deal he negotiated and bragged about in his first term, which he is now unhappy with.)

A mutually beneficial deal could be livable, however, a bad deal would be one to regret for a long time. Trump has said the U.S. “needs nothing from Canada.” Some in the steel, lumber and energy sectors (and their customers) may not agree. As the U.S. fall elections approach, certain U.S. state governors and politicians who feel the negative impacts may also have a say.

Mark Carney said he would not make a bad deal. This sounds like it was one of those.

Dan Furlan

Winnipeg

Dare not bend the knee

No surprise the Canada/U.S. trade deal collapsed. Canada had two choices — bend to the bully or stand strong for Canada. I think if Ukraine can suffer consequences of war with Russia, surely Canadians can suffer consequences of this trade war for the sake of our sovereignty and future generations.

Pain is inevitable, but better than a bad deal with the dictator down south. Canada is respected — we honour our trade deals; the U.S. does not.

Trump has said we’re nasty and only two countries have dared not to bend the knee — China and Canada. I thank Carney for standing up for Canadians. We must stay strong and united.

Nettie Lamb

Carman

They do want a 51st state

Donald Trump and his supporting cast of oligarchs and sycophants, adhering to the playbook of Project 2025, have made it abundantly clear that Canada is for the taking.

The most recent trade negotiations are little more than a precursor of what’s to come, and they were set up to fail from the onset. Expect any retaliatory measure by our federal government to be met with ever-increasing accusations of attempting to undermine American national security interests. We ought to prepare ourselves for the battle of our lives towards the preservation of our sovereignty.

Aside from the fact the lunatic occupying the presidency aspires to declaring reign over the largest land-mass in the history of the world, it remains that the United States cannot function as an insular entity, as being prescribed by the present administration, unless it possesses access to vast quantities of energy, water, land and mineral resources well within its reach and far beyond that which (it currently possesses).

That makes Canada the rather conspicuous target of its needs and desires, and we’d best come to terms with it. They aren’t interested in trade agreements, they’re committed to driving us into economic subservience and subordination, borrowing a page from the playbook of many a tyrannic regime throughout history.

This isn’t all about Trump, it’s the Musks, the tech titans and the financial interests of his cronies, family and whomever might hold sway over the president’s personal interests and self-preservation.

Collectively, they could not care less about Canada as a nation and a people — it’s what we possess that matters most.

Dan Donahue

Winnipeg

Life during wartime

I have led a fortunate life. Mine is the first generation in three that has not fought in a war; my father fought in the Second World War, my grandfathers in the First World War. Now, due to the economic policies of the Trump government, I find myself in the midst of an economic war that challenges the sovereignty of my country and I ask myself how best can I serve.

These are the things that I will be doing:

Given any choice, I will not be buying American products. If Canadian products are more expensive, I will consider the difference to be an investment in Canada.

• I will not spend one cent on non-essential travel to the U.S. There are a multitude of Canadian and international locations where I would prefer to spend my money;

• I will expect all different levels of government to implement policies to assist Canadians who may lose their jobs or businesses as a result of U.S. tariffs; be they preferential purchasing policies, increased taxation, public bonds, etc.

• I will be supportive of any government economic policy, without complaint, that needs to be implemented to support Canadians;

• I will consider Canadians from all other provinces to be my brothers in this fight and will support them as I will Manitobans.

Given the sacrifices by former generations of Canadians, which ensured that the Canada I live in is one of the best countries in the world, how could I do any less?

Brent Corrigan

Winnipeg

No easy fixes

Re: Condition critical (Aug. 22)

Thanks to Tom Brodbeck for the excellent lengthy article on the crisis in the ER system. The analysis, based on empirical data combined with vivid quotes from personnel on the front lines, in middle management, and from the health minister, made for informative, engaging and discouraging reading.

Given the diagnosis of a complicated, turbulent, fragmented, interdependent system, with numerous isolated and entrenched components on multiple levels, the usual prescription is for a more comprehensive, planned, integrated, co-ordinated approaches to the design and delivery of health-care services.

Unfortunately, the disappointing history of multiple previous attempts to redesign and improve the performance of the system does not give rise to optimism that any government, regardless of partisan stripe, can develop and implement a strategic plan to position the system for the longer term future.

Instead, political incentives to adopt short term thinking/actions, lack of certainty about the impacts of major reforms, insufficient financial and human resources, and implementation challenges mean that, in practice, the minister and her officials engage less in strategic planning and more in improvisation and experimentation trying to learn what can be done to relieve the serious stresses on the system.

Brodbeck mentions the blame game played by political parties. Citizens should be skeptical of claims that there are easy immediate fixes to the crisis.

Paul G. Thomas

Winnipeg