What Day Of The Week Is It?

Depending on many known and unknown variables, including what day of the week it is, one never knows what unhinged version of Donald Trump will make his appearance on any given occasion. Consistent, however, is the fact that no version of the mad king can be trusted. We would be well-advised to keep that in mind when attempting to 'negotiate' with him, as these letters attest.

Our move

So dropping the digital services tax without gaining any concessions, rather than appeasing the bully, just encourages him to demand more – as just about everyone expected, except perhaps our Prime Minister.

Any “deal” with Donald Trump likely won’t be worth the price of the Sharpie he signs it with. So if we are going to get hurt, let’s at least keep our self-respect and pride. China kept their dignity and retaliated, and he backed down.

Canada should immediately reinstate the digital services tax. We are going to get hit economically no matter what we do.

We might as well maintain our pride, dignity and sovereignty.

David Ross Canmore, Alta.

In attempting to negotiate with the United States, we are dealing with people who act capriciously and break formal agreements on a whim. It seems they don’t keep their word and don’t respect us.

I believe it’s time to treat the U.S. as unreliable. Stop thinking we can negotiate with them and trying to appease them. Move on to other trading partners.

Bill Hollings Toronto

Donald Trump’s latest 35-per-cent tariff threat should put an end to any illusions: Canada can no longer treat the United States as a steady trade partner.

Tying economic penalties to false claims about fentanyl isn’t policy – it’s posturing. It leaves Canadian businesses and workers in a constant state of uncertainty.

We can’t keep waiting for the U.S. to return to normal. I don’t think it’s coming back.

Mark Carney is right to delay the trade deadline and consult the premiers. But we need more than reaction. We need a shift in strategy: diversified trade, domestic investment and clear-eyed recognition that stability isn’t something we can import.

This isn’t a dramatic breakup. It’s a long-overdue adjustment to reality.

Rodney Beatty Sarnia, Ont.

Re “The U.S. is not our friend any more. Has anyone told Mark Carney?” (Report on Business, July 9): Beginning with the election campaign, Mark Carney has been delivering the message loudly and clearly that this U.S. administration is now an enemy of Canada. That he has so far wisely chosen not to poke the bear does not mean he has “completely misread the nature of the threat facing Canada.”

While the idea of any negotiation is rejected here as a waste of time and effort, Mr. Carney has chosen to try. Not even trying to mitigate the threat would be to accept dominance of and damage to our economy.

Failing a satisfactory agreement, Canada can walk away saying that it tried. I think Canadians will appreciate the effort.

After that, we can take the gloves off and raise our elbows again.

Jon Baird Uxbridge, Ont.

One ardently hopes that the prime minister and his team will get this message soon.  We've wasted enough time already.

Will I Be Deemed High Risk for Terror, Crime or Immigration Fraud ?

I have a confession to make. Since January of 2010, my wife and I have visited Cuba four times. So what, one might ask? Cuba has always been a popular destination for Canadians seeking some respite from harsh Canadian winters. What harm is there in that?

Well, potentially a great deal, if I understand the terms of the new border security pact that the Harper government has struck with the Obama government. Called Beyond the Border, it is being extolled by our 'leader' as the biggest breakthrough in Canada/U.S. affairs since the North American free trade pact. Unfortunately, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

As reported in The Star, one of those details is the following:

Under a sweeping new entry-exit system to be in place next year Canada will share more information on travellers, including people arriving here from abroad, or going from here to third countries. So-called “trusted” travellers will be speeded across borders, while those deemed “high risk” for terror, crime or immigration fraud will be red-flagged, or prevented from getting here.

In his column, Thomas Walkom elaborates:

Canada will be required to give more information about its citizens and residents to the U.S. By 2013, the countries promise to put in place a “systematic and automated biographical information-sharing capability” and by 2014 a “biometric information-sharing capability.”

A new exit-control system will be put in place for those crossing the land border between Canada and the U.S. in order to “exchange biographical information on travellers.”

So what does any of this have to do with our frequent visits to Cuba? Well, perhaps the most salient fact is that since 1982, Cuba has been designated by the Americans as a '"state sponsor of terrorism," the reasons for which can be seen by clicking on this link, reasons that are, in my view, typical of the United States' paranoid and jaundiced contempt for countries that don't embrace their worldview and values.

Nonetheless, I think the implication of this new border deal are clear. Personally, since I have not travelled to the U.S. for over 10 years, I doubt that the pact will have much effect on me, since if I had to choose between the two countries, Cuba would be my preferred destination.

However, fate can be capricious, and who knows if circumstances might at some point necessitate a visit to the U.S., that benighted country where reason has been largely supplanted by hysteria, and where productive policy has been replaced by demagoguery? Will I find myself being denied entry for my love of Cuba and its people, about whom I have written previously on this blog? Will I be taken to a back room and grilled about my relationship with certain Cubans that we have become friends with outside of the resort? Will I be subjected to the dreaded and invasive body search that can be imposed on the most unlikely of travellers?

These are questions that apparently are of no concern to Stephen Harper, who seems perfectly content to surrender our privacy rights and sovereignty because of the boost the pact will give to cross-border trade.

Quaint notions, sovereignty and privacy rights, aren't they?