# Canada-US Trade Relations



## Altair (31 May 2018)

So the US has imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum,  canada hitting back with dollar for dollar tariffs effective July 1st. 

Can't see this ending well. 

http://nationalpost.com/news/economy/newsalert-u-s-tariffs-on-steel-aluminum-coming-at-midnight-says-ross/wcm/d9cb84ae-4161-4465-ba43-88f916b91028



> Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced Thursday that the United States will end the temporary exemption on Canadian, Mexican and European Union steel and aluminum as of midnight, as scheduled.
> 
> That means that President Donald Trump will be facing a group of leaders who will likely have taken retaliatory action against the United States when he makes his closely watched Canadian debut at the G7 next week in Quebec.
> 
> ...



A trade war between allies. Just what was needed.


----------



## CBH99 (31 May 2018)

Legitimate question - albeit it might sound silly.

The US seems pretty intent on disrupting the status quo, even amongst it's allies.  Whether Trump is targeting & disrupting relations with foreign countries that aren't particularly friendly, or disrupting trading relationships with it's allies - he's making waves even amongst friends.


My question is this...

Although the wording of the news regarding this can sound scary, can we not simply increase our exports elsewhere?  China & India are the first to come to mind, can we not simply increase our exports to countries like those & become less dependent on the US for trade in certain areas?


----------



## brihard (31 May 2018)

A week before Trump comes up here for G7. Lovely.


----------



## Altair (31 May 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Legitimate question - albeit it might sound silly.
> 
> The US seems pretty intent on disrupting the status quo, even amongst it's allies.  Whether Trump is targeting & disrupting relations with foreign countries that aren't particularly friendly, or disrupting trading relationships with it's allies - he's making waves even amongst friends.
> 
> ...


there is a global oversupply of steel as there is. There is no garantee that India would want more steel. China is a steel exporter,  so they definitely do not. 

And in the case of India,  if their steel needs are met at current prices,  the only way they take more is at reduced prices. Not to mention the EU,  Canada,  China,  will all be looking to dump their excess steel that they cannot sell in the states anymore.


----------



## GAP (31 May 2018)

The whole exercise is a pressure tactic.....his attitude is we should beg on bended knee for consideration....let it play out. Retaliate by hitting imports from ridings that hurt the republicans


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Jun 2018)

You have to punch a bully in the nose....


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> You have to punch a bully in the nose....



A hard kick to the balls or knee is better.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2018)

I think this is more media spin than reality.Put up a border wall to keep those pesky americans out,wait you're americans too. ;DCall them illegal immigrants. :rofl:


----------



## FJAG (1 Jun 2018)

GAP said:
			
		

> The whole exercise is a pressure tactic.....his attitude is we should beg on bended knee for consideration....let it play out. Retaliate by hitting imports from ridings that hurt the republicans



That, in fact, is what we aim to do but not just Republicans in general; we're hitting areas where Trump supporting Republicans can be effected:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toilet-paper-1.4686833

It's interesting to note that many congressional Republicans are getting more and more vocal on this issue.

 :cheers:


----------



## Journeyman (1 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I think this is more media spin than reality.


   ???  Which part of the countervailing tariffs do you not believe is real?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Jun 2018)

Prior to the 1812 war, the border States opposed going to war with their best customer. Considering that wars have been the "defining moments" for Canada, perhaps a trade war might be good for us in the long run?


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Jun 2018)

There’s no way we are going to impose tariff on goods we cannot replace ourselves. I’m not sure it’s the same with them.
I can tell you Crown Royal made in Canada is preferred to the US distilled version of the same product. And they prefer Mexican Tequila .  Hit them where it it hurts- ther bar, the patio and the bed room and the bath room( Block US access to Porn Hub, which is proudly Canadian). 
Restart our strategic oil reserve and buy 4. 5 billion worth of oil to fill it with.  Keep filling it.
Recall Rachel Adams. Stuff like that!


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2018)

Wasn't there a trade argument about lumber ?There are those against these tarifs.I can see them used if countries put them on US goods but not trade partners.The President may be getting bad advice or else its some kind of payback.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Jun 2018)

I don't know what his game is, but the price of Canadian aluminum just went up 10 percent in the US, and it's still cheaper than their own domestic.  It sounds like our steel will be more problematic. This doesn't make any sense. If he wants to have a populist impact in the US about foreign minerals and mining, then start with middle Easter oil, anything from Turkey and Brazil. Even we can't compete with Brazil with all the subsidies.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jun 2018)

I would be surprised if the US and Canada/Mexico dont come to an agreement before the November election.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jun 2018)

Let's hope Trump doesn't find out that Samantha Bee is/was Canadian.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let's hope Trump doesn't find out that Samantha Bee is/was Canadian.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



... or that we started the whole tariff thing, with the National Policy: 


The term National Policy originally referred to a proposed raise in tariffs by the Macdonald-led Conservatives ("Tories") during the 1878 election campaign. Over time the term became associated with the entire Tory platform for developing the economy, especially increased immigration to Western Canada, and the development of the Canadian Pacific Railway's transcontinental line.[2][3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Policy


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I don't know what his game is, but the price of Canadian aluminum just went up 10 percent in the US, and it's still cheaper than their own domestic.  It sounds like our steel will be more problematic. This doesn't make any sense. If he wants to have a populist impact in the US about foreign minerals and mining, then start with middle Easter oil, anything from Turkey and Brazil. Even we can't compete with Brazil with all the subsidies.



I seriously think that the businessman in him got fed up with Trudeau and Freeland demanding non-Trade related clauses to be added to the renewed NAFTA agreement.  He likely sees no reason to bicker over how to fill quotas of female workers within companies, aboriginal Rights, and other clauses on Trudeau's social engineering list.  He therefore, just reverted back to Pre-NAFTA tariff policies and put pressure on both Canada and Mexico to use some common sense in their negotiations and drop the social engineering clauses.  

Trudeau's reaction in creating our own tariffs on such things as Maple Syrup, is reminiscent of a spoiled child not getting his way and having a tantrum.  By the way, I thought we exported Maple Syrup.

Trudeau's bringing up "Canadian Troops have fought alongside Americans" was a great insult to Veterans who still have not gotten over his words that "Veterans are asking for more than we can give".  

Trudeau has to accept the blame on this one, and stop playing the "Blame Game".


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2018)

[quote author=George Wallace] He likely sees no reason to bicker over how to fill quotas of female workers within companies, aboriginal Rights, and other clauses on Trudeau's social engineering list.  
[/quote]

Do we actually do that?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

I dont think the two leaders get along.


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont think the two leaders get along.



They are oil and water.  I can sympathize with Trump, l don't like Trudeau either.


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Do we actually do that?




No.  The NAFTA issue was over a sunset clause.  The US wanted a five year expiry time frame for NAFTA.


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I seriously think that the businessman in him got fed up with Trudeau and Freeland demanding non-Trade related clauses to be added to the renewed NAFTA agreement.  He likely sees no reason to bicker over how to fill quotas of female workers within companies, aboriginal Rights, and other clauses on Trudeau's social engineering list.  He therefore, just reverted back to Pre-NAFTA tariff policies and put pressure on both Canada and Mexico to use some common sense in their negotiations and drop the social engineering clauses.
> 
> Trudeau's reaction in creating our own tariffs on such things as Maple Syrup, is reminiscent of a spoiled child not getting his way and having a tantrum.  By the way, I thought we exported Maple Syrup.
> 
> ...



George, are you saying that Trudeau is responsible for Trump’s new tariffs on EU, Mexico and China?  Come on.  This is a political move by Trump that looks to backfire.

About the maple syrup thing.  You might think it’s a tantrum but it looks like a carefully crafted list by bureaucrats (I don’t give Trudeau any credit for coming up with this) likely developed after the last threat to target specific congressmen and senators and areas that will hurt Trump supporters.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toilet-paper-1.4686833


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> George, are you saying that Trudeau is responsible for Trump’s new tariffs on EU, Mexico and China?  Come on.  This is a political move by Trump that looks to backfire.



Trump is a business man.  

Stop and look back at some of the demands that Trudeau and Freeland were making, in adding clauses to NAFTA that really had no relevance to an agreement on international Trade.  I am sure that these demands at 'social engineering' have been a royal pain in the butt to all negotiators.  I am sure that the US frustration in these negotiations is now showing.  No NAFTA and we are all back to pre-NAFTA tariffs.  A reciprocal act of placing Canadian tariffs on American products looks more like that of a "spoiled child" having not gotten their way.   Pressure is now on for Canada and Mexico to get serious in negotiations.   

So, yes, I am saying that Trudeau brought this on himself.  He is the catalyst.


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Trump is a business man.
> 
> Stop and look back at some of the demands that Trudeau and Freeland were making, in adding clauses to NAFTA that really had no relevance to an agreement on international Trade.  I am sure that these demands at 'social engineering' have been a royal pain in the butt to all negotiators.  I am sure that the US frustration in these negotiations is now showing.  No NAFTA and we are all back to pre-NAFTA tariffs.  A reciprocal act of placing Canadian tariffs on American products looks more like that of a "spoiled child" having not gotten their way.   Pressure is now on for Canada and Mexico to get serious in negotiations.
> 
> So, yes, I am saying that Trudeau brought this on himself.  He is the catalyst.




I’m legitimatly interested in said clauses that seem to be the issue.  Do you happen to have a list I could look at.  Right now the biggest issues seem to be supply management, sunset clause and a removal of the dispute resolution mechanism.  Neither side seems to want to budge.  In fact an offer was made that as long as Canada agreed to a five year sunset clause then they had a deal.  Something Canada won’t accept.

Retaliatory tariffs are in reaction to what seems to be a flimsy excuse for tariffs on the US’ part.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I’m legitimatly interested in said clauses that seem to be the issue.  Do you happen to have a list I could look at.



https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/americas/canada-wants-a-new-nafta-to-include-gender-and-indigenous-rights.html



> Canada recently added its first gender chapter in its 20-year-old free-trade deal with Chile, which called for both countries to apply a gender lens to trade. As for the “indigenous chapter,” Ms. Freeland told reporters it was a “fresh area” that came at the suggestion of Perry Bellegarde, who represents most of the country’s indigenous people.
> 
> ..................
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/americas/canada-wants-a-new-nafta-to-include-gender-and-indigenous-rights.html



Ok.  Thanks for that ill take a read.  But specifically to NAFTA.  I haven’t found anything relating to that and how it seems to be a show stopper.   Everything seems to be about the three things I mentioned: sunset clause, supply management and dispute resolution.

That article seems to be about Chile...


Edit:  took a closer look.  Ok so they are taking or adding that to their approach but what clause exactly is causing the issue?  And how binding are they?  One would think it would be brought up?  The article was written before négociations began and is speculating.  Where do we currently stand?  What point are we at with that stuff in the nafta agreement?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

China is the biggest producer of steel and aluminum.The US ranks fourth in the world for steel and 9th for aluminum produced.The US produced 81m metric tons of steel.China produces as much steel in a month as the US does in a year ,831.7 metric tons. Japan is number 2 at 6% of total world output followed by India at 6.2.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> China is the biggest producer of steel and aluminum......



a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.

b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?


----------



## Remius (2 Jun 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.
> 
> b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?



b) The official reason is “national security...”


----------



## Journeyman (2 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> b) The official reason is “national security...”


Yes, so I've read; thank you.  I was hoping for a rational reason. 

....or hell, even an unrational reason that attempts to explain how a tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum will eliminate some make-believe security gap -- if only for the inevitable humour and/or clutching at imaginary straws.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jun 2018)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, so I've read; thank you.  I was hoping for a rational reason.
> 
> ....or hell, even an unrational reason that attempts to explain how a tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum will eliminate some make-believe security gap -- if only for the inevitable humour and/or clutching at imaginary straws.



Not that I am defending Trump, but in some circles I am reading/hearing that China uses Canada to flow steel (and aluminum, i guess), by selling to Canadian companies who do minimal work with it and then re-export to the US.

What I am finding difficult is discovering if this is actually true, or just opinion.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Jun 2018)

I read that also.

Somewhat along that line: https://globalnews.ca/news/4107759/steel-tariffs-chinese-dumping-justin-trudeau/

*Canada targets dumped steel from countries like China with new measures* - 28 Mar 18

Extract: In a statement shared with reporters Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister’s Office said the government is bringing forward new regulations to crack down on countries like China that dump their steel and aluminum in foreign markets at unfairly cheap prices.

“Canada is a trading nation, and we will not allow North American industries to be hurt or threatened by unfair trade practices, like the diversion of steel and aluminum,” said Trudeau in the statement.

....... 'Canada will not be used as a backdoor into other North American markets." .....


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

I am confident that an agreement may be reached.We have too many other common areas except climate change,which I agree that its junk and unproven.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.
> 
> b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?



Thats why I think there is a problem with Trudeau.According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.Since O and Trudeau are politically similar.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html


----------



## dimsum (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thats why I think there is a problem with Trudeau.According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.Since O and Trudeau are politically similar.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html



I'm going to attribute it to early (for a Saturday) morning, but I'm not seeing from those two articles how the NYT is saying Obama wanted to sabotage US-Canada relations.  It's not really a secret, nor a surprise, that Obama and PMJT are close (at least politically shaped to look that way).


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

The only link I found a few days ago is behind a subscription wall at NYT.I dont even know if what they printed, is accurate.I will keep digging.


----------



## FJAG (2 Jun 2018)

An absolutely bang-on speech by Ronald Reagan back in 1988 that addresses the foolishness of the Trumpian view on world trade and the whole tariff issue.



> This week, as we prepared for Thanksgiving, Canada held an important election, and I’m pleased to again send my congratulations to Prime Minister Mulroney. One of the important issues in the Canadian election was trade. And like our own citizens earlier this month, our neighbors have sent a strong message, rejecting protectionism and reaffirming that more trade, not less, is the wave of the future.
> …
> Over the past 200 years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists but it has also proven itself in the real world, where we have seen free-trading nations prosper while protectionist countries fall behind.
> 
> ...



https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/ronald-reagan-had-a-message-about-free-trade-with-canada-that-donald-trump-needs-to-hear/

 :cheers:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not that I am defending Trump, but in some circles I am reading/hearing that China uses Canada to flow steel (and aluminum, i guess), by selling to Canadian companies who do minimal work with it and then re-export to the US.
> 
> What I am finding difficult is discovering if this is actually true, or just opinion.



As I have previously posted:



> Quote from: recceguy on March 15, 2018, 17:30:54
> Partly because of the steel we buy from China, then gets transshipped into the States.
> 
> A surplus that small is pocket change and not worth the discussion. Trump throws all kinds of stuff out there. He's a master negotiator. Besides, he's not really involved in them is he?
> ...



Just some facts from US government:

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-Canada.pdf




> Steel Imports Report: Canada
> Imports by Top Source
> The top 5 source countries for Canada’s steel imports represented 79 percent of Canada’s total steel import volume in 2016 at 6.1 million
> metrics tons (mmt).
> ...



And the US Steel Report:

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-us.pdf



> Quote
> Imports by Top Source
> The top 10 source countries for U.S. steel imports represented 78 percent of the total steel import volume in YTD 2017 at 21 million metrics tons (mmt).
> Canada accounted for the largest share of U.S. imports by source country at 16 percent (4.3 mmt), followed by Brazil at 13 percent (3.6 mmt), South Korea at 10 percent (2.7 mmt), Mexico at 9 percent (2.4 mmt), and Russia at 9 percent (2.4 mmt).
> ...



So Canada imports more steel from US than it exports (4.5 mmt vice 4.3 mmt).  Canada  only import 0.7 mmt from China.  The net delta then is 0,5 mmt.  Given that the government is NOT a significant consumer of steel in Canada, and that most steel companies in Canada are foreign owned, I do not see any likelihood that Canada is "buying Chinese steel and transhipping it into the States".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jun 2018)

Thank-you!


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jun 2018)

No tariff on oil imprts.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2018)

The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"

I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).

While there are good arguments as to why we should attempt to build ties across both the Atlantic and Pacific, these need to be complimentary to our linkages to America, not antagonistic.

But now the choice will be "put up" or "shut up". The Liberal government and the "Laurentian Elites" will need to carefully consider and debate this choice, and be prepared to live with the consequences of whichever choice they make.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"
> 
> I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).
> 
> ...



Our Queen is European (but don't say that when you're face to face with a Limey  ).


----------



## FJAG (2 Jun 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"
> 
> I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).
> 
> ...



Disregarding the non sequitur "Laurentian Elite" comment for a moment, there really isn't an "either or/us or them" issue to be addressed when it comes to Canada's international trade. Our North American trade is essential. Our European and Pacific trade connections are highly desirable. Better trade connections with Africa and South America are also something to strive for.

Anyone who argues that we have to choose sides has an agenda. For Trump (and his coterie of unofficial advisers) the position is that Canada must enter into a trade agreement that favors the US. The Republican party generally does not support the actions that he is taking now. American policy makers, economists, and business leaders (again in general) are of the view that Trump's actions, vis a vis Canada and Europe, are not for a legitimate purpose and are in fact counter-productive to US interests. It's not that Trump isn't a big meanie; he's playing a political game to arouse his base which is generally uninformed and unwilling to understand that the 1950's "Father Knows Best" economic structure of the US/world no longer exists and can't be brought back by nativism and protectionism.

e.g. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tariffs-20180306-story.html
https://qz.com/1293821/trump-trade-war-146000-us-job-will-be-lost-to-steel-tariffs/

Canada's (or the Laurentian Elites' as you have called them) biggest economic challenge is how to endure the nonsense coming from the White House without crippling it's relationship with the US and the hard won connections that it has made to the East and West.

 :cheers:


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2018)

Who benifits the most from Trump's actions?


----------



## mariomike (2 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html





			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing from those two articles how the NYT is saying Obama wanted to sabotage US-Canada relations.



I do not see it, either.

What is the quote you are  linking to?


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2018)

NY Times and now its vanished.Maybe it was fake news.NY Times isnt always honest.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Who benifits the most from Trump's actions?



My _personal_ *opinion*, only:

First and foremost: Xi Jinping's China ~ Trump appears to be, as John Ibbitson says in the _Globe and Mail_, "Attacking the West," even Australia, which has good reasons to worry about China, will turn, again, away from America, ditto Africa;

Second: the Arabs ~ the US led West is in disarray, Russia in on their side, no matter what they do, and China wants their oil; and

Third: Putin's Russia ~ see above ... US led West in disarray, resources, etc.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.
> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html





			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> NY Times and now its vanished.



The New York Times link you posted yesterday is from 2017. It's still there.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2018)

There is evidence that the UK spied on Trump.So if O asked Trudeu to not play nice with Trump,it would happen.


----------



## mariomike (3 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So if O asked Trudeu to not play nice with Trump,it would happen.



"If"s are always interesting in online discussions. But, not the same as,



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jun 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Anyone who argues that we have to choose sides has an agenda. For Trump (and his coterie of unofficial advisers) the position is that Canada must enter into a trade agreement that favors the US. The Republican party generally does not support the actions that he is taking now. American policy makers, economists, and business leaders (again in general) are of the view that Trump's actions, vis a vis Canada and Europe, are not for a legitimate purpose and are in fact counter-productive to US interests. It's not that Trump isn't a big meanie; he's playing a political game to arouse his base which is generally uninformed and unwilling to understand that the 1950's "Father Knows Best" economic structure of the US/world no longer exists and can't be brought back by nativism and protectionism.


I just wanted to emphasize this for the benefit of those who get spooked by more than one paragraph.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2018)

Its about NAFTA.There you go one sentence.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its about NAFTA. There you go, one sentence.


Ohhhh.....I thought it was a national security issue.  I have so much to learn.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2018)

Trade has always had a national security element.There have been enough wars fought over the issue.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trade has always had a national security element.There have been enough wars fought over the issue.



Perhaps in this case, were, let's say GDLS Canada to use imported Chinese steel to make LAVs.

However, where is the product-related risk to America's national security when a Canadian subsidiary of a huge American company, as an example, uses Canadian steel to make ITAR-controlled goods that are sold only to the countries that America approves? 

???

Not seeing this as anything other than a thinly, if not at all veiled use of "The Art of The Deal" to keep "the competitors" (i.e. other nations around the world) off-balance, and leverage that protectionism to reinforce/shore-up the base for the 2018 mid-terms.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (3 Jun 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps in this case, were, let's say GDLS Canada to use imported Chinese steel to make LAVs.
> 
> However, where is the product-related risk to America's national security when a Canadian subsidiary of a huge American company, as an example, uses Canadian steel to make ITAR-controlled goods that are sold only to the countries that America approves?
> 
> ...


Its just a funny world we live in where the president of the united states is playing nice with north Korea and hardball with canada,  Mexico and the EU. 

Also amusing that they site national security as the reason for this,  while going out of their way to harm relations with their allies.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jun 2018)

It makes one wonder if, at the political level, the case for more European defence equipment purchases just got stronger?


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Jun 2018)

Let's invite China to a late summer round of Maple Flag. We can play the aggressor force. Then next year in Maple Resolve they can come back and practice bomb runs in Suffield and Wainwright. That's an example of a real national security problem.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It makes one wonder if, at the political level, the case for more European defence equipment purchases just got stronger?



 :nod:

Especially if a company like, say Dassault, moves a production line into Canada...along with full Intellectual Property.

I honestly don't think the Administration's trade gurus fully appreciate the secondary/tertiary effects...or maybe they do, and honestly don't give a hoot?

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Jun 2018)

Too many people are looking too deeply for a meaningful explanation.  I doubt there is one.  Trump is using foreign affairs to play domestic politics.  The tariffs sound well to some of his supporters, and the narrow benefits accrue to some of his supporters*.  I doubt he has bothered to quantify whether he has, purely among his potential supporters, made more people happy than angry.

There is one way in which I can conceive extending the explanation/excuse: Trump demonstrates that he is the person whose "offer" in negotiations amounts to not setting fire to the room everyone is standing in.  Doing this on one chosen issue might be enough to scare various parties into offering more concessions on all sorts of current and forthcoming trade negotiations.  Essentially, it is a ransom demand.

(*To recapitulate what I suppose nearly everyone who reads here knows/believes: with trade liberalization issues, net gains almost always heavily outweigh net losses and gains are widespread while losses are focused.  The losers are affected very profoundly - a complete loss of employment and any prospect for employment in a one-industry region is not meaningfully offset by a few dollars' reduction in the monthly cost of a generic basket-of-goods.  Trump at the least pretends to have those people's interests at heart; Trump's opponents basically insult them and tell them their way of life is dead and they should move on.)


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jun 2018)

Maybe the net effect might be an increase in Canadian defense spending in exchange for the tariff to go away.The US oil production is up to 10m a day and I hope will spur more,to lessen dependence on the middle east which is a national security issue.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/us-oil-production-tops-10-million-barrels-a-day-for-first-time-since-1970.html


----------



## Altair (3 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe the net effect might be an increase in Canadian defense spending in exchange for the tariff to go away.The US oil production is up to 10m a day and I hope will spur more,to lessen dependence on the middle east which is a national security issue.
> 
> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/us-oil-production-tops-10-million-barrels-a-day-for-first-time-since-1970.html


France is reaching the 2 percent of GDP on defense spending,  Macron has a good relationship with Trump,  France got hit with the same tariffs. So I doubt it.


----------



## FJAG (3 Jun 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Too many people are looking too deeply for a meaningful explanation.  I doubt there is one.  Trump is using foreign affairs to play domestic politics.  The tariffs sound well to some of his supporters, and the narrow benefits accrue to some of his supporters*.  I doubt he has bothered to quantify whether he has, purely among his potential supporters, made more people happy than angry.
> 
> There is one way in which I can conceive extending the explanation/excuse: Trump demonstrates that he is the person whose "offer" in negotiations amounts to not setting fire to the room everyone is standing in.  Doing this on one chosen issue might be enough to scare various parties into offering more concessions on all sorts of current and forthcoming trade negotiations.  Essentially, it is a ransom demand.
> 
> (*To recapitulate what I suppose nearly everyone who reads here knows/believes: with trade liberalization issues, net gains almost always heavily outweigh net losses and gains are widespread while losses are focused.  The losers are affected very profoundly - a complete loss of employment and any prospect for employment in a one-industry region is not meaningfully offset by a few dollars' reduction in the monthly cost of a generic basket-of-goods.  Trump at the least pretends to have those people's interests at heart; Trump's opponents basically insult them and tell them their way of life is dead and they should move on.)



Bingo!

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Jun 2018)

Well the world has tolerated the same political behaviour from Russia, China and North Korea to name a few, now they are upset that the US is playing from the same deck?


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well the world has tolerated the same political behaviour from Russia, China and North Korea to name a few, now they are upset that the US is playing from the same deck?



Not saying it isn't effective, but if "just like Putin, Un and Jinping" is how you are going to do things, don't be surprised when you slide towards fractured, globally underappreciated hegemony.

The descent from the previous (arguable) high(er) ground of Statesmanship is easy, getting back up to it will be much harder.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Altair (3 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well the world has tolerated the same political behaviour from Russia, China and North Korea to name a few, now they are upset that the US is playing from the same deck?


if America wants be doing the same nonsense as Russia, north Korea and China,  I wouldn't be surprised if  American influence in the world,  the west especially,  quickly starts to wain. 

Trade is one of the things that bind nations together,  expand and keep influence,  and if America wants to start to abandon the field to China and Europe,  they will suffer the consequences that comes with those moves.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Jun 2018)

Using Veterans as a tool:

1 Feb 18: "Why are we still fighting certain veterans groups in court? Because they're asking for more than we are able to give right now," Trudeau said, answering a question from a veteran, who said he lost his leg to an improvised explosive device in Afghanistan, during a town hall meeting on Thursday evening in Edmonton.

3 Jun 18: "Canadians have served alongside Americans in two world wars and in Korea. From the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of Afghanistan, we have fought and died together."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Trade is one of the things that bind nations together,  expand and keep influence,  and if America wants to start to abandon the field to China and Europe,  they will suffer the consequences that comes with those moves.



The US tried to ignore events in 1914-1917 and in the early '40s. We know how that turned out.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Jun 2018)

He's just doing what he said in his book:

The Art of the Deal

The book also contains an 11-step formula for business success, inspired by Norman Vincent Peale's The Power of Positive Thinking. Trump's steps are:
1.Think big
2.Protect the downside and the upside will take care of itself
3.Maximize your options
4.Know your market
5.Use your leverage
6.Enhance your location
7.Get the word out
8.Fight back
9.Deliver the goods
10.Contain the costs
11.Have fun

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump:_The_Art_of_the_Deal


----------



## McG (4 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its about NAFTA.There you go one sentence.


No it is not.  He hit Europe in the same action. Europe has nothing to do with NAFTA; and this action has nothing to do with NAFTA.  Though, it will have consequences for NAFTA as Canada and Mexico see that Trump is not really interested in making it work.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jun 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> No it is not.  He hit Europe in the same action. Europe has nothing to do with NAFTA; and this action has nothing to do with NAFTA.  Though, it will have consequences for NAFTA as Canada and Mexico see that Trump is not really interested in making it work.




Or is it the other way around?  

In all seriousness, what do pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions, etc. have to do with Trade negotiations?  Canada has thrown those all on the table.  It would appear to me that it is Canada that is not taking this as serious as they should; and should not be trying to social engineer other nations, let alone our own.  

The failure of NAFTA does have consequences beyond North America and Mexico.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jun 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> He's just doing what he said in his book:



Been saying this all along.  He makes an outrageous statement/demand.  Everyone is flabbergasted.  He comes in with an outrageously high bid/demand, and others are thrown off their feet with their expectations.  They haggle.  In the end, he lands up lowering his demand, but still lands up getting more than he expected, and everyone walks away happy with their deal.....even if in reality they were duped.  

If you thought those Used Car Salesman jokes were not real, then think again.... ;D


----------



## Altair (4 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or is it the other way around?
> 
> In all seriousness, what do pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions, etc. have to do with Trade negotiations?  Canada has thrown those all on the table.  It would appear to me that it is Canada that is not taking this as serious as they should; and should not be trying to social engineer other nations, let alone our own.
> 
> The failure of NAFTA does have consequences beyond North America and Mexico.


The current sticking point is a 5 year sunset clause being in the deal, nothing about pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions has been mentioned as holding up any deal.

So I don't believe that's it.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jun 2018)

Altair: 





> The current sticking point is a 5 year sunset clause being in the deal, nothing about pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions has been mentioned as holding up any deal.
> 
> So I don't believe that's it.



According to MSM/Liberal talking points.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not that I am defending Trump, but in some circles I am reading/hearing that China uses Canada to flow steel (and aluminum, i guess), by selling to Canadian companies who do minimal work with it and then re-export to the US.
> 
> What I am finding difficult is discovering if this is actually true, or just opinion.



Notwithstanding PPCLI Guys stats.

I'm sitting in the middle of the hub for tool & die and moldmaking in North America.
I had a couple of hundred shops, almost all inspected, in my area of operations working for the Ministry.
I have lots of friends that own these shops. I know many of their operations. I even know of a government project that had to replace two million bucks worth of chinese stainless, because it started rusting.

I know, for a fact, that hundreds of tons of chinese steel goes through here to the states. Raw, partially finished and finished.

I have a friend who owns a mould-try factory in China. Most molds coming from China go through his factory before export. They transship through Canada to the States. Almost every company here has sister operations in the States where molds and material are shipped back and forth over our border here. Which is one reason even GOP shop owners are screaming at Trump. They know chinese steel is flowing in cheaply and they don't want to lose that edge.


----------



## Altair (4 Jun 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Altair:
> According to MSM/Liberal talking points.


Which is all we have, so unless you have anything saying something different...


----------



## Remius (4 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> The current sticking point is a 5 year sunset clause being in the deal, nothing about pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions has been mentioned as holding up any deal.
> 
> So I don't believe that's it.



It isn't.  Trudeau can be blamed for a lot of things but Trump's personality and his belief that the world should work on an outdated mercantile economic model isn't one of them.

Some people who don't like Trudeau will try to pin everything including the volcano in Hawaii on him.

This is all about his base.  NAFTA plays into this but it has little or nothing to do with feel good progressive declarations that really mean nothing in the end.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Which is all we have, so unless you have anything saying something different...



No, I don't as I not at the table and neither is the MSM which is fed Liberal talking points which they disseminate.


----------



## McG (4 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Or is it the other way around?
> 
> In all seriousness, what do pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions, etc. have to do with Trade negotiations?  Canada has thrown those all on the table.  It would appear to me that it is Canada that is not taking this as serious as they should; and should not be trying to social engineer other nations, let alone our own.
> 
> The failure of NAFTA does have consequences beyond North America and Mexico.


What is your point? Are you saying that you think aluminum and steel tariffs against the EU are about NAFTA? Are you off on a tangent? You quoted my post about the tariffs not being about NAFTA, but I can’t figure out where you are trying to go with your thoughts.


----------



## Altair (4 Jun 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> No, I don't as I not at the table and neither is the MSM which is fed Liberal talking points which they disseminate.


So I'll take it with a grain of salt, but at the end of the day, it's the information that is available, so that's what I will go with.

That said, the Americans have been pushing for a sunset clause before now, so it's not inconceivable that the issue holding up NAFTA talks.

To date, I haven't heard anything about a progressive agenda by Canada holding up any NAFTA negotiations.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jun 2018)

MCG said:
			
		

> What is your point? Are you saying that you think aluminum and steel tariffs against the EU are about NAFTA? Are you off on a tangent? You quoted my post about the tariffs not being about NAFTA, but I can’t figure out where you are trying to go with your thoughts.



My thoughts are that Trump's tariffs could be a sign of his frustration that both Canada and Mexico, but primarily Canada, are trying to introduce totally unrelated items into the negotiations, that have no relevance on Trade.  That with his "business style of thinking" he has acted in a manner that would force others to negotiate on matters that he wants dealt with.  That he has now placed tariffs on the EU and other nations, is just collateral damage of this strategy. 

His style of governing like a businessman is totally foreign to Canadian, and foreign, politicians and diplomatic corps.  I believe that he will "barter" his way, haggling all the way, to get what he wants in a businesslike manner, foreign to the diplomacy that most would be accustomed to.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Jun 2018)

The discussion on the radio this morning was that it was more of a tariff on the Chinese since this was bsteel that originated in China.If the tariff was on China all they would need to do was essentially launder the steel through a third party avoiding the tariff.Makes sense to this old infantryman.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The discussion on the radio this morning was that it was more of a tariff on the Chinese since this was bsteel that originated in China.If the tariff was on China all they would need to do was essentially launder the steel through a third party avoiding the tariff.Makes sense to this old infantryman.



Except that PPCLI Guy showed convincingly, a few post upthread that, using the US Govt's own numbers, the amount of steel coming into Canada from China and then transhipped into the US amounts to a rounding error in the overall yearly trade in steel.

This morning, Diane Francis was on CBC radio. It was her opinion that this is all actually aimed at Mexico and the that tariffs on Canada are designed to cut Canada away from supporting keeping Mexico in NAFTA. The reason is that Mexico's low cost labour and nearly non-existent environmental regulations are hollowing out manufacturing in the US (and Canada, too). 

 :dunno:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (4 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, what do pay equality, gender rights, Indigenous rights, cultural exceptions, etc. have to do with Trade negotiations?  Canada has thrown those all on the table.  It would appear to me that it is Canada that is not taking this as serious as they should; and should not be trying to social engineer other nations, let alone our own.



Since all (most) of these issues would appropriately fall under labour standards and thus would be a component of production why wouldn't they be issues to be raised in trade negotiations.  Note that labour standards, while not an included section in the text of the NAFTA, were the subject of one of the parallel agreements that came into effect in conjunction with NAFTA.
North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation
North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

And Canada isn't alone in bring up labour standards in the negotiations.  According to the US Trade Representative these will be issues that the USA will bring to the table.

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/Press/Releases/NAFTAObjectives.pdf


> Labor:
> - Bring the labor provisions into the core of the Agreement rather than in a side agreement.
> - Require NAFTA countries to adopt and maintain in their laws and practices the
> internationally recognized core labor standards as recognized in the ILO Declaration,
> ...


----------



## McG (4 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that Trump's tariffs could be a sign of his frustration that both Canada and Mexico, but primarily Canada, are trying to introduce totally unrelated items into the negotiations, that have no relevance on Trade.  That with his "business style of thinking" he has acted in a manner that would force others to negotiate on matters that he wants dealt with.  That he has now placed tariffs on the EU and other nations, is just collateral damage of this strategy.


Got it.  So, in your mind, Trump hammering the world with tariffs is about Canada and Mexico? China (which was hit first) and EU (which was hit concurrent with Canada) are just collateral damage?

I know you dislike the PM, but I think you have to grasp at a lot of imagined fictions about the current state of NAFTA negotiations (not to mention an inflated sense of national self-worth) to think this is about Canada or NAFTA.

This is not a Canada/USA trade war.  We are looking at USA vs the world trade war. We are less of a player than we want to believe.


----------



## CountDC (4 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Except that PPCLI Guy showed convincingly, a few post upthread that, using the US Govt's own numbers, the amount of steel coming into Canada from China and then transhipped into the US amounts to a rounding error in the overall yearly trade in steel.
> 
> This morning, Diane Francis was on CBC radio. It was her opinion that this is all actually aimed at Mexico and the that tariffs on Canada are designed to cut Canada away from supporting keeping Mexico in NAFTA. The reason is that Mexico's low cost labour and nearly non-existent environmental regulations are hollowing out manufacturing in the US (and Canada, too).
> 
> :dunno:



I think the point he was making is that if they don't put it on Canada we would see a large increase to that number as a means of bypassing.


Personally I think this whole thing is Trump playing tough businessman to negotiate for what he wants.  Nothing really unexpected.  Biggest surprise to me is how many people are surprised by it.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Jun 2018)

I am not looking at Trump as a politician, or even as a President, but as a businessman, and think that all his ministrations are those of a businessman, not a politician, out to haggle the best deal for himself.  I think that he actually is not just focused on one deal, NAFTA, but a larger playing field.  He is taking his eleventh point and having fun, while aiming for his goal of making America Great again.  He is keeping his cards close to his chest and bluffing his way around the table(s).


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2018)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> My thoughts are that Trump's tariffs could be a sign of his frustration that both Canada and Mexico, but primarily Canada, are trying to introduce totally unrelated items into the negotiations, that have no relevance on Trade.  That with his "business style of thinking" he has acted in a manner that would force others to negotiate on matters that he wants dealt with.  That he has now placed tariffs on the EU and other nations, is just collateral damage of this strategy.
> 
> His style of governing like a businessman is totally foreign to Canadian, and foreign, politicians and diplomatic corps.  I believe that he will "barter" his way, haggling all the way, to get what he wants in a businesslike manner, foreign to the diplomacy that most would be accustomed to.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> I am not looking at Trump as a politician, or even as a President, but as a businessman, and think that all his ministrations are those of a businessman, not a politician, out to haggle the best deal for himself.  I think that he actually is not just focused on one deal, NAFTA, but a larger playing field.  He is taking his eleventh point and having fun, while aiming for his goal of making America Great again.  He is keeping his cards close to his chest and bluffing his way around the table(s).



With respect George, he's not negotiating like a businessman, whether Canadian, foreign or international.

Businessmen negotiate with the understanding that a good deal is one that benefits both parties although you always want your side to come out slightly ahead. If you are negotiating with the intent to crush the other side then they will simply walk away from a bad deal or figure out some way to stick it to you.

Trump right now is playing it up for his base to look tough. He doesn't care about what the outcome of these negotiations are as he has nothing personally invested in it. All too often already he has made concessions and favourable deals with countries and companies that make it possible for the Trump brand (and not the USA brand) to get concessions. (such as the UAE who uses his hotel in Washington v Qatar who didn't; Trump tower approval in Argentina right after an Eric T arranged Trump telephone call with Argentina's president; Chinese approvals of Ivanka Trump trademarks; Japanese dealings with Ivanka Trump clothing lines)

However, when Trump deals with foreign trade he simply doesn't care what the outcome is. He's not playing with his own money he's playing with other peoples. Regardless of the outcome of the negotiations, Trump will call it a victory for his side and an example of his great skills as a business negotiator. Unfortunately there will be a great herd of no nothing enablers in the alternate press who will back him up in front of his base because they are all playing the same anti establishment, anarchist game.

Every American should be concerned. What Trump is teaching the world more and more is that America can't be trusted or relied on anymore. International agreements are being torn up like so much confetti. All that is being offered as an alternative are ones designed to give the US a massive advantage. What's worse is that Trump told his base exactly what he was going to do and they ate it up. Now he's doing it. The result is that everyone out there understands that its not just a matter of waiting out until Trump is thrown out of office or goes to the big Mar-a-Lago in the sky. There may well be future presidents every bit as erratic as Trump. It will be up to future administrations to overcome the feeling of ill will that has developed and will continue to grow.

 [cheers]


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jun 2018)

Other countries learned under Obama that relying on the US wasnt good. Trump has accomplished more than any other at this point in the adminisration.So far he is handling North Korea,both parties want something loosen sanctions or give up nukes.If they actually do that then there will be security guarantee's for Kim.Kim sacked a number of key leaders that dont agree with his regime in the past week or so.


----------



## Altair (5 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Other countries learned under Obama that relying on the US wasnt good. Trump has accomplished more than any other at this point in the adminisration.So far he is handling North Korea,both parties want something loosen sanctions or give up nukes.If they actually do that then there will be security guarantee's for Kim.Kim sacked a number of key leaders that dont agree with his regime in the past week or so.


That odd state where America spits on its allies and shakes hands with a dictator.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> That odd state where America spits on its allies and shakes hands with a dictator.



 :rofl:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2018)

The US is a powerful player and people loved to hate it, before the US would tolerate the double standard of "I hate you, but give me money and guns so I will hate you a tiny bit less". The US was not getting a lot out of those relationships and China has been maneuvering to to undercut Western industry and have everyone by the trade and resource balls. It's not surprising China is pissed. Canada's problem is is that we look like a sideshow, but actually play a bigger part in the US economy than realized. Punishing us, is going to have repercussions on both sides. That lack of understanding of the shared economic role, goes as far back as 1812. Canada's failure has been always to reliant on the US and that puts us in a weak negotiation position.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2018)

Some of the rhetoric from the original NAFTA negotiations was the idealistic goal of bringing Mexico's standard up to the equivalent of the US & Canada.....

That has not happened, likely will never happen for a variety of reasons....

So why are we clinging to the original ideal? Let there be free trade deals with the US, but separately.

 :2c:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2018)

Because if Canada dumps Mexico for those reasons, then they claim racism and that will taint Trudeau.


----------



## GAP (5 Jun 2018)

Well Goodness...........we wouldn't want the hair to be tainted...... :facepalm:


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2018)

GAP said:
			
		

> Some of the rhetoric from the original NAFTA negotiations was the idealistic goal of bringing Mexico's standard up to the equivalent of the US & Canada.....
> 
> That has not happened, likely will never happen for a variety of reasons....
> 
> ...



Trade arrangements between multiple countries are generally stronger and make it harder for any one country to get an individual advantage over the others. This is why the EU has created a trading block and why the TPP was created to create similar advantages to the pacific regions.

Trump wants out of these deals because it is the single largest economy in the world and has a dominant position in any trade deals made with a single country. Basically its a "divide and conquer" philosophy. It is for this specific reason that country's like Germany will not (and cannot) make independent deals with the US. Deals are done as a group by the EU. 

Canada gains strength in NAFTA by being partnered with Mexico despite the fact that Mexico has a cheaper labour force. We knew that going in but still believed (and still do believe) that we are stronger in NAFTA with Mexico than without them.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (5 Jun 2018)

Till they sucked the auto building trade from us. We can't compete dollar for dollar, only on QC (as long as management and unions do their bit.)


----------



## Remius (5 Jun 2018)

Interesting.  There is a primary tonight.  Tariffs are put in place just before.

Last time it was just before a primary in Pennsylvania wasn’t it?


----------



## FJAG (5 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Till they sucked the auto building trade from us. We can't compete dollar for dollar, only on QC (as long as management and unions do their bit.)



But even this has trade-offs. The auto industry is so competitive that cost savings by the companies actually translate into cheaper cars for consumers. Yes there are lost jobs but you offset (sometimes more, sometimes less) with greater consumer purchasing power. You lose some manufacturing jobs but gain on the sales and service side.

As an example better buying power all I have to do is look at my patio. Cheaper Chinese steel products (I'll leave aside electronics) make garden furniture relatively inexpensive. I've got tables and chairs and lounges and gazebos up the yingyang all manufactured in China and bought locally at a reasonable price (even after overseas shipping and the usual high retail markup).

While I'm also sad to see manufacturing jobs leaving here, its not as simple as blaming international trade. Add in high electricity/energy costs in Ontario for manufacturers, expensive unions, the ever increasing use of robotics, tax burdens, an education policy that rewards meritocracy, complex government regulations etc and you can see the problem is much more complex than one dog whistle issue.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Jun 2018)

There is merit in your argument, until there are no consumers with spare cash to buy the cheap goods. Once you lose the majority of the middle class, Canada's retail sector will crash as it is already overbuilt, which then impacts commercial real estate and construction, impacting remaining resource jobs supplying goods to the construction industry.

You need a influx of cheaper goods to keep companies somewhat honest, at the same time creating enough secure decent paying jobs to supply your domestic markets and niche areas where you can successfully export to keep the trade balance. China has been playing this game for awhile, denying access to it's markets, while demanding and enticing people to open theirs fully to them.


----------



## FSTO (6 Jun 2018)

This is actually funny

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html

If Trudeau was smart he would have told Trump that no Canada did not burn down the White House. It was the British, and then watch him spout off about the Europeans!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jun 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This is actually funny
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html
> 
> If Trudeau was smart he would have told Trump that no Canada did not burn down the White House. It was the British, and then watch him spout off about the Europeans!



I love the way Canada plays the 'burning the White House' thing. When things are going our way, it was us. When it's to someone else's advantage, the Brits did it.

There was no Canada at the time. We were a British colony.

It's hard to fault outsiders who think Canadians were responsible. Especially when we lay claim to it all the time.


----------



## Altair (6 Jun 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I love the way Canada plays the 'burning the White House' thing. When things are going our way, it was us. When it's to someone else's advantage, the Brits did it.
> 
> There was no Canada at the time. We were a British colony.
> 
> It's hard to fault outsiders who think Canadians were responsible. Especially when we lay claim to it all the time.


except... You know,  this is the president of the united states we are talking about here.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jun 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I love the way Canada plays the 'burning the White House' thing. When things are going our way, it was us. When it's to someone else's advantage, the Brits did it.
> 
> There was no Canada at the time. We were a British colony.
> 
> It's hard to fault outsiders who think Canadians were responsible. Especially when we lay claim to it all the time.



I agree with you, Recceguy, that this Canadian tendency to say it was us when it pleases us, but the Brits otherwise is pretty silly.

However, the one thing that is not contested where facts on that story are concerned is that, regardless of whether it was Canada or the Brits, we didn't start the damn war. The Americans started it by invading Canada (and burning York first, not just one house, the whole town) because they thought they could take advantage of the Brits involvement in Napoleonic wars in Europe to "annex" their North American remaining colonies. Burning the White House was the retaliation.

So regardless, for president Trump to allegedly (at this point that story seems to have leaked from the Canadian side, not the US) bring the burning of the White House to counter Canada's claim of being a good ally is as stupid as if Trump used it to claim that Great Britain is not a current solid ally.


----------



## FJAG (6 Jun 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> . . .
> However, the one thing that is not contested where facts on that story are concerned is that, regardless of whether it was Canada or the Brits, we didn't start the damn war. The Americans started it by invading Canada (and burning York first, not just one house, the whole town) because they thought they could take advantage of the Brits involvement in Napoleonic wars in Europe to "annex" their North American remaining colonies. Burning the White House was the retaliation.
> . . .



My guess is that there are only a handful of historians in the US that know that. The other 325.7 million haven't got a clue and if they are even aware of the War of 1812 think that they were attacked first but won the war at New Orleans (which took place two weeks after the the Treaty of Ghent was signed.)

I presume Trump learned about the burning of the White House was when he was given a tour of the place a year ago.

 [cheers]


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Jun 2018)

Correct me if l err, but was it not the RN policy of boarding American merchantmen and impressing those crew members they deemed to be from the UK that got the US all fired up?  If so, is this not therefore a Chicken and Egg tussle?


----------



## FJAG (7 Jun 2018)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Correct me if l err, but was it not the RN policy of boarding American merchantmen and impressing those crew members they deemed to be from the UK that got the US all fired up?  If so, is this not therefore a Chicken and Egg tussle?



You're not exactly wrong. The basis for the War has been debated and disputed ever since it was fought. The impressment issues and other maritime questions were very real and definitely a cause and there are proponents on both sides that the War was either a reaction to British (and French) maritime policies or a convenient cover for expansionist policies to all of North America.

I've always subscribed to the notion that the War's genesis came out of the conflict between the Federalist Party (supporters of a strong central government) and the Democratic-Republican party (supporters of weak central government and in favour of strong state rights). Madison lead the D-R and the party at the time was very expansionist (both into Indian territory and Canada and beyond) Madison's successor as president after the War was also a D-R stalwart, James Monroe, he of the Monroe Doctrine and a "war hawk" within the D-R. At the time of the War, Monroe was Madison's Secretary of State (and after the burning of Washington, the Secretary for War). Monroe himself advocated strongly for himself to personally lead the invasion of Canada. Madison too saw the invasion of Canada as highly desirable because he thought it would be an easy task to take it. At a minimum, he thought, Canada's capture would be a bargaining chip in the US's dispute with Britain. The US was never united in either it's desire to fight with Britain nor the invasion of Canada. New England, in particular, was very anti-war.

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Jun 2018)

and Maine as well as I recall, I think all the border States had trade with Canada and didn't want to lose that.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Jun 2018)

Just tweeted.


----------



## FJAG (7 Jun 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> and Maine as well as I recall, I think all the border States had trade with Canada and didn't want to lose that.



If smuggling can be called trade.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (7 Jun 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Just tweeted.



Of course Trump forgets about US tariffs on Canadian lumber and newsprint.


----------



## dimsum (7 Jun 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Of course Trump forgets about US tariffs on Canadian lumber and newsprint.



Kind of hard to rile up the base that way.   :nod:


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Jun 2018)

Point was Supply Mgt. Why are Cdn consumers paying through the nose?


----------



## Altair (7 Jun 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Point was Supply Mgt. Why are Cdn consumers paying through the nose?


to play devils advocate,  its the only way to compete with how much the US subsidises their dairy industry.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (8 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> to play devils advocate,  its the only way to compete with how much the US subsidises their dairy industry.



And corn, and sugar, etc


----------



## GAP (8 Jun 2018)

and just about anything agricultural....the lobby is strong


----------



## Altair (8 Jun 2018)

GAP said:
			
		

> and just about anything agricultural....the lobby is strong


Ya, more or less.

We do away with supply management, we dump billions of dollars into subsidies to compete, higher taxes, etc.

There is no simple winning solution here


----------



## pbi (12 Jun 2018)

I just read the Trump tweets about how Canada terrorizes the US economy. Has that man ever uttered a real fact in entire his life? Who can possibly believe the trash he trots out? It doesn't even match US govt figures. I mean, politicians like to BS-I get it-but I can't ever recall anybody remotely like this. Certainly not in US history, not even Clinton in his Monica and Whitewater days.

On a more positive note, it was very interesting to see both Doug Ford and Stephen Harper express their support for the Govt as it struggles with resurgent US protectionism and voodoo economics. But I guess it makes sense: some Canadians may have forgotten that Free Trade with the US was originally a Tory deal worked out with a Republican Govt, and both parties have traditionally been big defenders of free trade. (Unlike the Liberals, NDP and Democrats)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jun 2018)

All of this talk of trade boycotts is fine...but do people really understand the level of effort it is going to take to truly decouple the Canadian economy from the US market?

It is going to take a WW2 level of coordinated effort and a lot of the little "provincial" protection crap we put up with is going to have to be sacrificed as we seek new markets and sources of machinery.  In short, it is going to be painful and expensive. Just sayin.


----------



## CountDC (12 Jun 2018)

FSTO said:
			
		

> This is actually funny
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/06/politics/war-of-1812-donald-trump-justin-trudeau-tariff/index.html
> 
> If Trudeau was smart he would have told Trump that no Canada did not burn down the White Blue House. It was the British, and then watch him spout off about the Europeans!



Wasn't white at the time, that came after.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Jun 2018)

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/


> J.J. McCullough’s reality check in WaPo;
> 
> Comments at SDA from the person who posted the article above:
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jun 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> I just read the Trump tweets about how Canada terrorizes the US economy. Has that man ever uttered a real fact in entire his life? Who can possibly believe the trash he trots out? It doesn't even match US govt figures. I mean, politicians like to BS-I get it-but I can't ever recall anybody remotely like this. Certainly not in US history, not even Clinton in his Monica and Whitewater days.
> 
> On a more positive note, it was very interesting to see both Doug Ford and Stephen Harper express their support for the Govt as it struggles with resurgent US protectionism and voodoo economics. But I guess it makes sense: some Canadians may have forgotten that Free Trade with the US was originally a Tory deal worked out with a Republican Govt, and both parties have traditionally been big defenders of free trade. (Unlike the Liberals, NDP and Democrats)



Well, after all, he was off to meet with a guy who actually runs his own concentration camp (and ghetto nuclear) program, so he had to look tough. If nothing else, Canada is like the kid you always stuff in the locker in Grade 8: we take a licking and keep coming back to try and be your friend.


----------



## AlexanderM (12 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> All of this talk of trade boycotts is fine...but do people really understand the level of effort it is going to take to truly decouple the Canadian economy from the US market?
> 
> It is going to take a WW2 level of coordinated effort and a lot of the little "provincial" protection crap we put up with is going to have to be sacrificed as we seek new markets and sources of machinery.  In short, it is going to be painful and expensive. Just sayin.


And Trump doesn't get it, he just wants to be able to hit a switch. The F-35 gets parts from Canada, Boeing gets parts from Canada and every other production line in the US that gets parts from Canada and the other way around would have to re-source. The good news is because we pretty much spend dollar for dollar with the US, we could in theory take that money and redirect it into Canada, but that is only in theory, in reality it's a nightmare.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jun 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> All of this talk of trade boycotts is fine...but do people really understand the level of effort it is going to take to truly decouple the Canadian economy from the US market?



You mean it's harder than just tweeting #BoycottUSA or #buyCanada?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jun 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You mean it's harder than just tweeting #BoycottUSA or #buyCanada?


 :nod:

Look- if Canadians really mean it and want to have an immediate effect- don't travel to the US.

No more cross border runs for cheap gas and milk.

No more Disneyland, Arizona in the winter, Disneyworld, New York, Hawaii and Vegas trips.

But that would take self-sacrifice.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Jun 2018)

https://www.carlstargroup.com/news/category/press-release/the-carlstar-group-to-increase-prices


Link is a perfect example of Trump shooting his trade war right into the face of US companies that chose to import steel from China. These companies are not going to source domestic steel and aluminum, they are simply increasing prices to match increased costs of importing. It is US consumers who will be carrying the burden.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Jun 2018)

http://brianlilley.com/what-trudeau-did-to-set-trump-off-it-will-surprise-you/   (Videos at link)

*What Trudeau did to set Trump off. It will surprise you!* - Brian Lilley - 13 Jun 18

Extract: 1. At 4:15 in the clip below (at link), Russo (CBC Ottawa Bureau Chief) starts to describe how the meeting, the bilateral between Trudeau and Trump is going so well that Trump waives his demand of a sunset clause. The Americans had been demanding that NAFTA expire and need to be reaffirmed every five years.

            2. I (Lilley) listened back to Trump’s news conference as he left the G7 and he said that he still wanted a sunset clause but left open the possibility of a longer timeline, said negotiations were going well and the two sides were close. “We’re pretty close on the sunset provision,” Trump said. “You have one group that wants to have five years and then a renegotiation, and you have another group that wants longer because of the investments but we’re pretty close.”

           3. Trump reportedly left the meeting thinking he had made a deal with Trudeau and had made a gracious gesture. Then Trudeau came out and sounded like he was fighting in his news conference when asked about the sunset clause. I’m (Lilley) still not sure what Trudeau said that was different, *he was sticking to his old script*. But maybe that was the problem.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2018)

I think Mr Lilley is being too hard on Prime Minister Trudeau. I suspect that the Canadians had, before the G7 summit, concluded that what President Trump says, at any moment, is worthless ... he might, often will change his mind in minutes, days or weeks, on a whim.

I'm sure the _sunset clause_ was, indeed, "off the table" in that instant, but i do not blame the PM or his team for sticking with the established, 'dollar for dollar' retaliatory tariffs, script until Team Trump, the official US delegation came back to the table saying, "*OK, we do not need a sunset clause; what's the next item on our agenda?*" Even then I wouldn't be too sure because this is an administration with absolute zero respect for honesty or constancy in negotiation.

President Trump is _sui generis_; the centuries old rule book for diplomacy is worthless; he is, quite simply, a chronic liar, I doubt he knows or cares about truth and lies ... what he _wants_, this instant, is "good" and "true," anything else is a "lie" and "bad." A three year old having a temper tantrum is my closest analog to President Donald J Trump.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jun 2018)

Canada lost 7500 jobs last month.Maybe the PM can explain that.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-unemployment-jobs-may-1.4697522


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada lost 7500 jobs last month.Maybe the PM can explain that.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-unemployment-jobs-may-1.4697522



He doesn't have to. All people see and care about now is that he's fighting with Trump and they love it.

I'd almost suggest it was a very clever and calculated move by the PM's office to increase his approval ratings and distract from his recent record of follies.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada lost 7500 jobs last month.Maybe the PM can explain that.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-unemployment-jobs-may-1.4697522



Perhaps the same way the President explained the loss of 140,000 jobs in Q3 last year? ???

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada lost 7500 jobs last month.Maybe the PM can explain that.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-unemployment-jobs-may-1.4697522




In so far as jobs are tied to trade ~ and something like 1/3 to 1/2 of Canadian jobs are trade dependent and 75%+ of our trade is with the USA then the current state of affairs, principally the uncertainty over NAFTA and now the tariffs is, almost certainly, scaring companies and investors away from Canada. I would hazard a guess that 2,500 of those 'lost' jobs are tied, very directly to what Donald J Trump has said and done.

But, and this is an important 'but,' any reasonably fair reading of history says that free(er) trade ALWAYS brings periods of (relative) peace and prosperity while trade wars often end up in bloody shooting wats. No person with the brains the gods gave to green peppers believes, even for a f'ing _μ_second that anyone ever wins a trade war. President Trump, of course, does believe that he can and will win a trade war, but see my comments about gods, brains and green peppers.

I don't know when the American people will put aside their *fear* ~ and that's what it is ~ of change and accept that America reached the zenith of its power in the 1950s* and the world is, as it always has, changing and Bismarck was wrong: there is no "_special providence_" that protects fools, drunks and the USA. Until Americans can face reality the *Trump Party,* or something worse, will be in the driver's seat and the world will be a poorer place ... I'm not sure who replaces America as the indispensable nation, but someone needs to step up because unless America grows up it is finished.

* Britain reached the peak of its power _circa_ 1835, it took 60 years for the world to notice; Britain was still a major but no longer a really _*great*_ power in 1935, by 1985 Britain was a second or even third tier power, albeit a nuclear tipped one. It was even thus; eee Paul Kennedy and others, but Kennedy should have looked father back because his thesis holds for thousands, not just hundreds of years.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jun 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...But, and this is an important 'but,' any reasonably fair reading of history says that free(er) trade ALWAYS brings periods of (relative) peace and prosperity while trade wars often end up in bloody shooting wats. *No person *with the brains the gods gave to green peppers *believes*, even for a f'ing _μ_second *that anyone ever wins a trade war*. President Trump, of course, does believe that he can and will win a trade war, but see my comments about gods, brains and green peppers....



In President Trump's world, "Losing LessTM" *IS* winning...more than the other guy.

To wit...

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-06-07/donald-trump-the-lose-lose-negotiator



> OPINIONPolitics & Policy
> 
> Donald Trump, the Lose-Lose Negotiator
> 
> ...


----------



## pbi (15 Jun 2018)

Concerning Trump's apparent lack of concern for facts, take (for example) his rantings about the dairy trade issue. He seems to be holding out the battered, bleeding body of the Wisconsin dairy industry as an example of how Canada has selfishly and heartlessly screwed the dairy farmers of America.

So, I looked up a few things, starting at the source. Here, at the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board: http://www.wisconsindairy.org/assets/images/pdf/WisconsinDairyData.pdf. That state produced over 132 million hectolitres of milk last year.

Then, I looked for the figures on Canada's total total milk production last year, here: http://www.dairyinfo.gc.ca/index_e.php?s1=cdi-ilc&s2=aag-ail. All commercial dairy production in Canada totalled 84 million hectolitres of milk.

So, right off the bat, Wisconsin alone dwarfs our entire dairy industry just in milk production alone. But what about the trade relationship in dairy?

Here, http://www.usdec.org/research-and-data/market-information/top-charts-x1507the US Dairy Export Council says that Canada received 636 million dollars US worth of US dairy products. (Second  export destination after Southeast Asia, above China). In return, here: http://aimis-simia-cdic-ccil.agr.gc.ca/rp/index-eng.cfm?action=gR&signature=DB98579E7869437BF7300588097E0488&pdctc=&r=166&pTpl=1&pr=2 ,we exported 140, 584, 000 dollars Cdn worth of dairy to the US.

So, how is it we're destroying the US dairy industry, again?

If I have to pick which dairy farmers to defend, I'll pick the ones in my own country, thanks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2018)

The best way to counter him is to express such facts and be willing to run ads in newspapers/media in the US. Avoid anything that could be taken personally and allow a opening that he can use while saving face. Both JT and Trump are going to face a difficult election period, so everything is focused to those events.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jun 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> Concerning Trump's apparent lack of concern for facts, take (for example) his rantings about the dairy trade issue. He seems to be holding out the battered, bleeding body of the Wisconsin dairy industry as an example of how Canada has selfishly and heartlessly screwed the dairy farmers of America.
> 
> So, I looked up a few things, starting at the source. Here, at the Wisconsin Milk Marketing Board: http://www.wisconsindairy.org/assets/images/pdf/WisconsinDairyData.pdf. That state produced over 132 million hectolitres of milk last year.
> 
> ...



There you go with TRUE FACTSTM again, pbi.  Many of the sources I also used in my research for facts, and while openly available to anyone with a computer or smart phone and a search engine, not many people seem to actually inform themselves of such facts.  Real Donald tweets and Fox episodes sadly hold the day for many.  :not-again:

Regards
G2G


----------



## pbi (15 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada lost 7500 jobs last month.Maybe the PM can explain that.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/employment-unemployment-jobs-may-1.4697522



Yes, true. But that may not mean all that much. If you look here: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/180105/dq180105a-eng.htm, national unemployment is at the lowest point since 1976.

So that figure (doomsayers aside) may just be a down-blip on an upward trend.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2018)

US unemployment is 3.8 %.


----------



## Altair (15 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> US unemployment is 3.8 %.


let us all see what it is after the USA is involved in a trade war with nostalgia of the planet


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jun 2018)

I don't want a trade war because there will be no winners.Americans do vacation as well.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/canadians-boycott-us-products-cancel-vacations-to-america/


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I don't want a trade war _because there will be no winners_.Americans do vacation as well.
> 
> https://nypost.com/2018/06/14/canadians-boycott-us-products-cancel-vacations-to-america/




Maybe you don't, but President Trump does ... he slapped 25% tariffs on $50 Billion worth of Chinese goods and now China as retaliated, just like Canada, on a dollar-for-dollar basis. So you've got yourself a trade war, and not with an economy that is 1/11th of your size, but with China, which will not lose, and with the EU at the same time ... that's 57 different varieties of dumb! 

But, you guys elected him and now you'll reap what he's sowed ... sorry about that.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> US unemployment is 3.8 %.



US unemployment isn't measured the same way.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2018)

Kim Jong Un is going to negotiate peace between the USA and Canada


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2018)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> US unemployment isn't measured the same way.



Is there an equivalent? How would you compare the two?


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Is there an equivalent? How would you compare the two?




https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-005-m/75-005-m2015002-eng.htm


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jun 2018)

Interesting that wages are declining in a period of peak employment.  Sucks to not be the 1%, even in a booming economy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-arent-just-flat-theyre-falling/?utm_term=.8b91e95166b5



> For the biggest group of American workers, wages aren’t just flat. They’re falling.
> By Jeff Stein and Andrew Van Dam
> June 15 at 2:02 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/75-005-m/75-005-m2015002-eng.htm




Just to summarize, if you use the american model to calculate then our unemployment rate would be lower by about 1%.  Meaning we would be within 0.9% of the US rate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2018)

Found this while looking: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/06/08/canadian-economy-loses-31000-full-time-jobs/



> Canadian Economy Loses 31,000 Full-Time Jobs
> SPENCERFERNANDOJUNE 8, 20185
> Trudeau Business Fail
> 
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting that wages are declining in a period of peak employment.  Sucks to not be the 1%, even in a booming economy.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-arent-just-flat-theyre-falling/?utm_term=.8b91e95166b5



The underlying message here is that it's always better, financially and long term security-wise, to run your own business and stay competitive than work for someone else. What makes America, or anywhere else, great isn't working McJobs - for a legislated minimum wage - your whole life. 

This approach will be on steroids during the Trump era, of course.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jun 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Found this while looking: https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/06/08/canadian-economy-loses-31000-full-time-jobs/
> 
> 
> Additionally, the workforce participation rate (considered by many a more accurate gauge than the unemployment rate) fell to 65.3%. That’s the fewest number of workers as percentage of the economy since October of 1998.



And to the south of us:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193961/seasonally-adjusted-monthly-civilian-labor-force-participation-rate-in-the-usa/



> This graph shows the seasonally adjusted civilian labor force participation rate on a monthly basis. Civilian labor force is a term used by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to describe the subset of Americans who have jobs or are seeking a job, are at least 16 years old, are not serving in the military and are not institutionalized. In other words, all Americans who are eligible to work in the everyday U.S. economy. In May 2018, about 62.7 percent of the American population, eligible to work, participated in the job market.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jun 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Interesting that wages are declining in a period of peak employment.  Sucks to not be the 1%, even in a booming economy.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/15/for-the-biggest-group-of-american-workers-wages-arent-just-flat-theyre-falling/?utm_term=.8b91e95166b5



And that whole gabbbly-gook article can be condensed into one sentence. 

Because right now you're North American business is trying to compete with, close to slave labour, around the world.

WTF do people think will happen??  Tariff away USA....


----------



## Altair (16 Jun 2018)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And that whole gabbbly-gook article can be condensed into one sentence.
> 
> Because right now you're North American business is trying to compete with, close to slave labour, around the world.
> 
> WTF do people think will happen??  Tariff away USA....


I'm sure rising costs at shopping malls and grocery stores will help everyone.


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Jun 2018)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And that whole gabbbly-gook article can be condensed into one sentence.
> 
> Because right now you're North American business is trying to compete with, close to slave labour, around the world.
> 
> WTF do people think will happen??  Tariff away USA....



The good news? Armies will become more relevant!  

The Only Thing, Historically, That's Curbed Inequality: Catastrophe

Plagues, revolutions, massive wars, collapsed states—these are what reliably reduce economic disparities.

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jun 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The good news? Armies will become more relevant!


Good news for the Legion then.  They'll have another generation of actual veterans who won't bother with them, but a slew of 'heel-spur commandoes' signing up to get Legion medals to wear on 11 November.   :nod:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I'm sure rising costs at shopping malls and grocery stores will help everyone.



....and you shop someplace where they are dropping???....I'll follow you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2018)

I've noticed a lot of Made in USA, Made in Canada and Made in the UK (Snugpak) stuff slowly but surely gets sourced out to child/slave  other countries. Quality of some Snugpak products took a nose dive when they started making stuff in China (IIRC) and Arcteryx, I think, started making a product out of Canada but canceled it and bringing it back to Canada. Guessing maybe the QC was poor?

Are automated tellers and fast food kiosks popping up a lot in the US too or is that a Canada thing?


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jun 2018)

The CBC article proposes a different approach:

Drug patents could be Canada's special weapon in U.S. trade dispute

Taking an 'asymmetrical' approach and targeting U.S. intellectual property has worked in the past, experts say


----------



## Altair (18 Jun 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The CBC article proposes a different approach:
> 
> Drug patents could be Canada's special weapon in U.S. trade dispute
> 
> Taking an 'asymmetrical' approach and targeting U.S. intellectual property has worked in the past, experts say


That's pulling out the big guns. 

Wait until we need to use it.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Jun 2018)

In a tit for tat, Ottawa has levied tariffs on the US with subsidies for Canadian steel/aluminum producers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/canada-officially-strikes-back-against-us-tariffs/ar-AAzliFN?ocid=spartandhp


----------



## Altair (29 Jun 2018)

Poor bourbon is taking a beating. 

That makes Europe and now Canada.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In a tit for tat, Ottawa has levied tariffs on the US with subsidies for Canadian steel/aluminum producers.



Does that actually surprise you, T6? Does a government actually doing what it said it would do come as a shock to you?

Did you, as your commander-in-chief appears to, expect that in trade war started unilaterally by the US, there would be no US "casualties" - that the rest of the world would just cave in and give up at the first minor skirmish?


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Jun 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Poor bourbon is taking a beating.
> 
> That makes Europe and now Canada.



The same, I believe, for Florida orange juice.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Jun 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The same, I believe, for Florida orange juice.



Only when it hits $16 per glass.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Jun 2018)

I hope there isn't a run on tomato juice. 8)


----------



## Furniture (29 Jun 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I hope there isn't a run on tomato juice. 8)



We use Clamato in our Caesars  8)


----------



## Altair (4 Jul 2018)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-trade-gomez-baruah-1.4732736



> "A former Mexican congressman and founding member of a Mexico-based think tank says it's time for Canada to drop the gloves in its trade fight with the United States. "
> 
> "Agustin Barrios Gomez said Canada needs to understand that Canada is living in a new world where the friendship that bound it to its southern neighbour "no longer is currency with the current administration" in Washington.
> 
> ...


Some good advice from our actual friends in the south.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> ….look at what each country's national interests are....


Strongly agree.  However, things like 'gender balance for everyone in everything' is _possibly_  a 'nice to have' but is not remotely a national interest.



> …. we cannot be allies if we are not friends.


Disagree.  We allied with USSR in WW2.  Greece and Turkey are quite hostile NATO allies.  Alliances (like trade agreements) require understanding our best interest and/or a common enemy rather than 'friendship' -- there is more to effective politics than selfie opportunities.


Both points require grown-up political leadership.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Jul 2018)

>Some good advice from our actual friends in the south. 

Not necessarily.  "Let's you and him fight" is an old gambit.  Undoubtedly Mexico would like other countries to stir up trouble, the better to reduce whatever focus the US has on Mexico.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/majority-of-canadians-would-boycott-u-s-in-response-to-trade-war-nanos-survey-1.4000466



> The majority of Canadians said they are likely (43 per cent) or somewhat likely (29 per cent) to boycott U.S.-made goods if there is a trade war between the two countries. Twenty-six per cent said they are either somewhat unlikely (10 per cent) or unlikely (16 per cent) to do so. Two per cent said they are unsure.
> 
> When asked how likely they were to stop shopping at U.S. retailers in Canada in the event of a trade war, nearly seven in ten Canadians said they are likely (43 per cent) or somewhat likely (25 per cent) to stop. Close to three in ten said they are somewhat unlikely (13 per cent) or unlikely (16 per cent) to stop shopping at U.S. retailers in Canada. Three per cent said they are unsure.
> 
> ...



I kind of like that. Defending Canadian honour.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Jul 2018)

So people are willing to boycott US retailers?  Like Tim Horton's (which is now actually Brazilian I think) and stop watching Netflix??

That I'd like to see.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So people are willing to boycott US retailers?  Like Tim Horton's (which is now actually Brazilian I think) and stop watching Netflix??
> 
> That I'd like to see.


Probably more goods. Probably shop at walmart and avoid things made in america I would imagine.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jul 2018)

> The Nanos survey also found that many Canadians are willing to halt travel south of the border, and potentially reverse that upward trend.
> 
> When asked how likely they were to curtail or stop travelling to the U.S. in the event of a trade war, a majority of Canadians said they are likely (57 per cent) or somewhat likely (16 per cent) to do so. One in four said they are somewhat unlikely (8 per cent) or unlikely (17 per cent) to curtail or stop travelling to the U.S. Two per cent said they are unsure.
> 
> Nik Nanos said avoiding travel to the U.S. seems to be the most popular option considered by Canadians, since it’s “an easy way to send a very clear message that will hit American pocketbooks in terms of their tourist economy immediately.”



IMHO, the Nanos survey should have qualified the participants by Cdns e.g.Snowbirds, regular travellers, etc instead of just asking everybody, which would include people who don't travel to the US at all, or never had intentions to travel to the US. I doubt the 57% and the 16% of  Snowbirds are going to stop their travel to the US.

http://www.cbj.ca/flocking-to-the-south-this-winter-canadian-snowbirds-and-the-dollar/

Anyway, it was reported that Canada requested six times last week to for meetings on NAFTA, and Trump wants to wait till after the Mid-terms in Nov. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/canada-still-aiming-intensive-nafta-173634273.html 

I think Trudeau was hoping to get NAFTA settled for a snap election in the Fall. Liberal talking point: Capt Trudeau saves Canada. In my area the number of letters/comments praising the Liberals/local LPC MP Steven Fehr (ex RCAF) have increased in the last couple of weeks. Some of the letters are really over the top.

Nothing on the Trudeau groping incident locally.   https://globalnews.ca/news/4309277/justin-trudeau-reporter-grope/


----------



## sandyson (5 Jul 2018)

I have little faith in 'boycott the US' sentiment.  In the extreme, recall human nature in the War of 1812.  South-western Ontario burned but trade prospered along the St Lawrence and East.  A 'boycott the US' drive will be scrupulously supported unless an American item in question is lower cost. I suspect travel to the US will be restricted more by the relative value of the dollars and family security than by government policy.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jul 2018)

Once the tariff issue is settled, I very much doubt that the consumer items such as Bourbon, toilet paper, washing machines, etc will return to their pre-tariff price. It is the Canadian way.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> So people are willing to boycott US retailers?  Like Tim Horton's (which is now actually Brazilian I think) and stop watching Netflix??
> 
> That I'd like to see.



A lot of people are trying to make some sort of effort.  but yeah it will be hard for some. 

I tried finding any produce made in Canada at my grocery store.  Very little there but at least I am now supporting my local farmer's market for that.  But come winter that won't be too easy to do though. 

But concentrated effort would work better.  The same store had French's Ketchup front and center of their store for sale.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

Sandyson said:
			
		

> I have little faith in 'boycott the US' sentiment.  In the extreme, recall human nature in the War of 1812.  South-western Ontario burned but trade prospered along the St Lawrence and East.  A 'boycott the US' drive will be scrupulously supported unless an American item in question is lower cost. I suspect travel to the US will be restricted more by the relative value of the dollars and family security than by government policy.


There is no boycott USA policy for the Canadian government, it's more a grassroots thing.


----------



## Good2Golf (5 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> A lot of people are trying to make some sort of effort.  but yeah it will be hard for some.
> 
> I tried finding any produce made in Canada at my grocery store.  Very little there but at least I am now supporting my local farmer's market for that.  But come winter that won't be too easy to do though.
> 
> But concentrated effort would work better.  The same store had French's Kketchup from a subsidiary of American food conglomerate McCormick & Co. of Sparks, Maryland, front and center of their store for sale.



In fairness, they do buy Canadian tomatoes and make the ketchup in Canada, but... 

G2G


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2018)

Around here, the tourism industry in upper New York state, Vermont and New Hampshire have reported a roughly 20% drop in Canadian tourism, on which they rely a lot to make payroll and profits. It's a big drop with consequences.

My wife and I have, like many people from around Montreal, always enjoyed dropping in to Burlington (VT) from time to time to browse around the shops and stop for a good supper at NECI*, the Waterworks or the Inn at Essex. Others go to Plattsburgh, NY for the same. I am not surprised that many Canadians have therefore decided that not doing so until this is resolved is an easy grassroots retaliation.

*NECI: New England's Culinary Institute - they have great chefs teaching talented kids and their menu is exceptional, if ever you find yourself in Burlington. Reservations are recommended on week ends.


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Around here, the tourism industry in upper New York state, Vermont and New Hampshire have reported a roughly 20% drop in Canadian tourism, on which they rely a lot to make payroll and profits. It's a big drop with consequences.
> 
> My wife and I have, like many people from around Montreal, always enjoyed dropping in to Burlington (VT) from time to time to browse around the shops and stop for a good supper at NECI*, the Waterworks or the Inn at Essex. Others go to Plattsburgh, NY for the same. I am not surprised that many Canadians have therefore decided that not doing so until this is resolved is an easy grassroots retaliation.
> 
> *NECI: New England's Culinary Institute - they have great chefs teaching talented kids and their menu is exceptional, if ever you find yourself in Burlington. Reservations are recommended on week ends.


My parents usually take a Summer Trip to NYC, to visit family for a week or so.

They are visiting family in Toronto instead this year. It's not surprising to see this as a easy grassroots protest of America.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Jul 2018)

Stop eating Kellogg cereals. All made in the good old USA.

While you are at it, stop purchasing these brands if you want to boycott US products and companies.

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/consumer-brands-owned-ten-companies-graphic_n_1458812    Updated 12/06/2017

Extract: A ginormous number of brands are controlled by just 10 multinationals, according to this amazing infographic from French blog Convergence Alimentaire. Now we can see just how many products are owned by Kraft, Coca-Cola, General Mills, Kellogg's, Mars, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, P&G and Nestlé.

(Disclaimer: We are not sure how up-to-date the graphic is. For example, it has not been updated to reflect P&G's sale of Pringles to Kellogg's in February 2012.)


----------



## Altair (5 Jul 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Stop eating Kellogg cereals. All made in the good old USA.
> 
> While you are at it, stop purchasing these brands if you want to boycott US products and companies.
> 
> ...


Not bad, I only need to find replacements for Tylenol, Pampers, Tide and dawn.


----------



## Furniture (5 Jul 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> In fairness, they do buy Canadian tomatoes and make the ketchup in Canada, but...
> 
> G2G



I doubt many companies are entirely "American" or "Canadian", particularly if they are publicly traded. I think the idea is more along the lines of what you said about where the end product in made. French's ketchup is made in Canada so "good", Heinz is made in America so "bad". Much like the proposed auto tariffs that will impact "American" car companies like Fiat-Chrysler, and GM, because they dare make "American" cars in Canada.

It's a minor point, but in the age of looming trade wars I find myself less interested in American made when a suitable alternative from Europe or Asia is available. Prior to the current issues it was the opposite, I would prefer to support Canadian or American over others when possible. I know my Sgt's pay isn't going to make a difference, but if enough Canadians start thinking that way it might have a small impact.


----------



## Remius (5 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> My parents usually take a Summer Trip to NYC, to visit family for a week or so.
> 
> They are visiting family in Toronto instead this year. It's not surprising to see this as a easy grassroots protest of America.



Anecdotal but yeah, some extended family of mine cancelled their winter stay in Florida.  3 Couples.  They are opting for Dominican instead.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2018)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I doubt many companies are entirely "American" or "Canadian", particularly if they are publicly traded. I think the idea is more along the lines of what you said about where the end product in made. French's ketchup is made in Canada so good, Heinz made in America so bad. Much like the proposed auto tariffs that will impact "American" car companies like Fiat-Chrysler, and GM.
> 
> It's a minor point, but in the age of looming trade wars I find myself less interested in American made when a suitable alternative from Europe or Asia is available. Prior to the current issues it was the opposite, I would prefer to support Canadian or American over others when possible. I know my Sgt's pay isn't going to make a difference, but if enough Canadians start thinking that way it might have a small impact.



You may be amazed at what "small but numerous" can achieve.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLbWnJGlyMU

And that's just a kid-age level explanation (doing that in case President Trump is monitoring.  ;D )


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 Jul 2018)

This conversation highlights the degree of both global integration and extreme concentration of wealth / structure that characterises the global economy within which all countries trade, and all of its citizens thrive or strive.  

There is little utility to economic nativism in such a construct, and hence the futility of the US initiated tariff imbroglio....


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2018)

Altright I totally caved to the #BoycottUSA thing.

I was going to buy a $629.06 Spartan Blades_ Difensa knife_ (made in USA) but my wife I decided I was an idiot would be patriotic.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2018)

:goodpost:  :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Altright I totally caved to the #BoycottUSA thing.
> 
> I was going to buy a $629.06 Spartan Blades_ Difensa knife_ (made in USA) but my wife I decided I was an idiot would be patriotic.


I've got one,  good knife. Thankfully I used acquittance roll so the wife barely saw the 150 bucks a month missing out of my pay for 3 months...


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I tried finding any produce made in Canada at my grocery store.  Very little there but at least I am now supporting my local farmer's market for that.  But come winter that won't be too easy to do though.



My wife and I grow enough vegetables to keep us going till Mar/Apr on a postage stamp size lot..Tomato plants along the fence line netted us 100 lbs of tomatoes 2 seasons ago - we process and can stewed tomatoes, Spaghetti sauce and Salsa -...yes it is a lot of work but worth it...when the veggies run out into the spring we go to the Hutterite colony and buy enough to last us till the fall....they also supply us with our chickens - the size of baby turkey's......

For beef - by the side +/- $1500 cut, wrapped and frozen- and pork  - whole pig $400 with bacon and ham smoked, cut, wrapped and frozen - we buy from the Olds College which is an Agricultural college and raise their own livestock as well as doing the butchering- best beef in Alberta.....


Where there is a will, there is a way.....


Cheers
Larry


----------



## larry Strong (5 Jul 2018)

Gonna have to  check out Primo ketchup

Cheers
Larry


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've got one,  good knife. Thankfully I used acquittance roll so the wife barely saw the 150 bucks a month missing out of my pay for 3 months...



Wanna sell it, brudder?
Also think it's worth going price of $630 for a new one?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wanna sell it, brudder?
> Also think it's worth going price of $630 for a new one?



Mine has personalized etching so not for sale  ;D. We got them directly from Spartan for about $450 CAD. First run of them for us was $300 CAD, then the dollar took a dump. Its a good knife, definitely designed for killing human beings as its heavy and sharp.


----------



## kkwd (6 Jul 2018)

It's fine to say buy made in Canada goods and travel to Canadian holiday locations. Buy Canadian is not anything new. Here are some reports from CBC archives in 1982 on the government campaign to Buy Canadian. 

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/one-citys-buy-canadian-campaign

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/buy-canadian-read-the-label

Here is a CBC Radio clip from 1977 with textile workers urging people to Buy Canadian. 

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/textile-workers-implore-buy-canadian

The Buy Canadian campaign is even older as shown in this CBC Radio interview from 1961. 

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/buy-canadian-a-simple-sad-little-plea

It seems right now the goal of buying Canadian goods is just to poke the US, or more particularly President Trump, in the eye. I am a firm believer in buying the goods made in your own country. I would go all the way down to supporting your local businesses.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2018)

Much of the drop in US shopping and visits has to do with the value of our dollar as it does patriotism. I don't see Canada's imports being much affected by a psuedo-boycott

As long as the Great Canadian Superstore keeps ordering and selling Heinz ketchup, the boycott will be inneffectual. Products need to be boycotted at the corporate level, not the personal level.


----------



## Altair (6 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Much of the drop in US shopping and visits has to do with the value of our dollar as it does patriotism. I don't see Canada's imports being much affected by a psuedo-boycott
> 
> As long as the Great Canadian Superstore keeps ordering and selling Heinz ketchup, the boycott will be inneffectual. Products need to be boycotted at the corporate level, not the personal level.


If people stop buying Heinz ketchup, the great canadian superstop will stop ordering more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> If people stop buying Heinz ketchup, the great canadian superstop will stop ordering more.



Price it 10 cents cheaper than the Canadian brand and watch it fly off the shelves. Typical Canadians will pick their pocketbook over patriotism

My point is, in this case, a consumer boycott is inneffectual and I doubt it'll have the effects that the anti Trumpers are hoping for.

Trump wants to put off NAFTA until after the Nov mid terms.

I want it put off until Trudeau and his caucus are replaced with sane, business savvy people that know how to negotiate a trade pact without all Trudeau's social engineering clauses.


----------



## Altair (6 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Price it 10 cents cheaper than the Canadian brand and watch it fly off the shelves. Typical Canadians will pick their pocketbook over patriotism
> 
> My point is, in this case, a consumer boycott is inneffectual and I doubt it'll have the effects that the anti Trumpers are hoping for.
> 
> ...


I also want it put off until after the mid terms, because if the Democrats take congress there will be no further negotiations and the current, mostly fine, trade deal will continue on.

Also, even if Trudeau is replaced by sane, business savvy people that know how to negotiate a trade pact without all Trudeau's social engineering clauses as you say, you think Sheer is giving up on supply management? You know, the actual holdup, that and the sunset clause, not any social engineering clauses.

Don't hold your breathe, the dairy lobby owns both sides of the aisle in Canada.


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2018)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/majority-of-canadians-support-trudeau-s-trade-tactics-with-trump-nanos-survey-1.4005105



> Despite angering U.S. President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s bold assertion that Canada “will not be pushed around” by America on trade earned the support of most Canadians, a new Nanos Research survey suggests.
> 
> The report, commissioned by CTV News and The Globe and Mail and released Sunday, shows that Trudeau’s handling of the tricky trade relationship with Trump has earned the support of the majority of Canadians.
> 
> The survey also found that a majority of Canadians are optimistic that Canada’s economic interests will be met if NAFTA is renegotiated.





> Following the G7 summit in Charlevoix, Que., Trudeau held a press conference where he insisted that Canada won’t be pushed around by the U.S. The statement angered Trump, who called Trudeau “meek and mild” during G7 talks.
> 
> Seven in 10 Canadians supported Trudeau’s move, with 53 per cent of respondents agreeing that the statement was a good idea and 23 per cent calling it a somewhat good idea. Only 22 per cent said it was a bad idea or a somewhat bad idea.



Captain Canada at work.

In seriousness, if the economy does take a hit, I think most Canadians realize that there is not much Canada could have done to prevent it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Price it 10 cents cheaper than the Canadian brand and watch it fly off the shelves. Typical Canadians will pick their pocketbook over patriotism



Call me disloyal but with the amount of money our government wastes on stupid shit I'll stick with whatever Katchup tastes the best- which for me is Heinz.


----------



## Altair (9 Jul 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Call me disloyal but with the amount of money our government wastes on stupid crap I'll stick with whatever Katchup tastes the best- which for me is Heinz.


Disloyal.


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2018)

This article is a few years old but it breaks down who tends to buy Canadian and that 92 percent prefer to buy Canadian. 

I am noticing around my parts more made in Canada signs.  The local grocery store had French's Ketchup.  The farmer's market across the street said they've seen an increase in customers looking for local produce (including myself).

Caveat:  this is all anecdotal for me and not necessarily a trend.


----------



## FJAG (9 Jul 2018)

A brief and balanced look at Canadian miscues in the trade dispute.

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/a-u-s-canada-trade-war-rages-on-and-we-are-not-blameless/

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (9 Jul 2018)

Good article FJAG. 

Both authors are well regarded on these issues.


----------



## Altair (13 Jul 2018)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canada-travel-may-1.4213816



> Canadians are making fewer trips to the United States, and foreign appetite for travel in Canada has hit its highest May on record.
> 
> Statistics Canada reported Thursday that Canadians made 3.2 million trips to the United States in May, down almost eight per cent from April's level and nearly six per cent lower than the same month a year ago.
> 
> Car trips to the U.S. were sharply lower, down to 2.5 million during the month, which is the lowest figure seen for that month since 2003.



Seems like the anecdotal evidence is starting to show up in the actual statistics.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Seems like the anecdotal evidence is starting to show up in the actual statistics.






> The number of Canadians heading south has grown this year, and the flap between Trump and Trudeau after last month's G7 summit in Quebec didn't change that.
> Border crossing data indicates the number of Canadian motorists returning from the U.S. in June grew 12.7 per cent from last year, a healthy increase, according to a license plate-scanning system used by the Canadian government.


https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/c-est-la-vie-canadians-still-visiting-u-s-despite-trade-flap-1.4013928



Or not.......


Cheers
Larry


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2018)

My wife went to New York State last weekend and the price of gas was the equivalent of $0.57/litre. There will be massive advantages to cross border trade for the foreseeable future, _if_ the government does not engage in a pissing contest they cannot win.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jul 2018)

For sure both sides need to remain level headed we do have an election in November and any more tariffs will need Congressional approval which will be a tough sell for many members.The US is still getting Canadians to cross the border.

https://apnews.com/3cc07ddb7c9f469081c414021d2bd19d


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> My wife went to New York State last weekend and the price of gas was the equivalent of $0.57/litre. There will be massive advantages to cross border trade for the foreseeable future, _if_ the government does not engage in a pissing contest they cannot win.


I don't buy gas in Canada unless I'm stuck. I can always find a reason to shop and fill up. I can be over the border faster than I cross the city.🙂


----------



## PPCLI Guy (16 Jul 2018)

I always buy my gas at home. It pays for my health care - and yours, and will some day pay for my pension - and yours, and my VAC pension - and yours, and perhaps even my medicine - and yours.


----------



## RocketRichard (16 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I always buy my gas at home. It pays for my health care - and yours, and will some day pay for my pension - and yours, and my VAC pension - and yours, and perhaps even my medicine - and yours.


Hear hear


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I always buy my gas at home. It pays for my health care - and yours, and will some day pay for my pension - and yours, and my VAC pension - and yours, and perhaps even my medicine - and yours.



Yeah, I've been working and paying my taxes for over 51 years. Are you even that old? And I'm still paying myself my pensions and ohip through my taxes Plus all the lazy slugs spending three generations on welfare who dont contribute a fucking thing towards all those things you hold so near and dear.

I declare every single thing I bring in. If I don't get sent to secondary for duty and taxes that's not my fucking problem. I could be following our PMs example of smuggling in and not declaring our country's $300 sunglasses gift that he was fined $100 for trying to keep. However, I refuse to follow any of his leads. Unlike the career climbers with their outward gushing of all things trudeauesqe, in order to be seen as an obedient supporter of his false jingoism and their own lack of spine hoping to be noticed for advancement. There are many prime examples in our nations capital. I'm not handsome, but I don't see a hypocrite in the mirror either and I sleep just fine. But thanks again for supporting me in retirement like I did for all those retired ahead of me during my 51 year tax paying working life.

Cheers


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've been working and paying my taxes for over 51 years. Are you even that old? And I'm still paying myself my pensions and ohip through my taxes Plus all the lazy slugs spending three generations on welfare who dont contribute a ******* thing towards all those things you hold so near and dear.
> 
> I declare every single thing I bring in. If I don't get sent to secondary for duty and taxes that's not my ******* problem. I could be following our PMs example of smuggling in and not declaring our country's $300 sunglasses gift that he was fined $100 for trying to keep. However, I refuse to follow any of his leads. Unlike the career climbers with their outward gushing of all things trudeauesqe, in order to be seen as an obedient supporter of his false jingoism and their own lack of spine hoping to be noticed for advancement. There are many prime examples in our nations capital. I'm not handsome, but I don't see a hypocrite in the mirror either and I sleep just fine. But thanks again for supporting me in retirement like I did for all those retired ahead of me during my 51 year tax paying working life.
> 
> Cheers


Smuggling in? 

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4718338&ved=2ahUKEwicp5nntaPcAhUCPN8KHcbLC_YQFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw17cfNLBXQ2oVaL88Ot5IXm&ampcf=1



> The gift, according to the prime minister's public declaration, was two pairs of leather-covered sunglasses made by Fellow Earthlings eyewear, based in the rural P.E.I. community of Guernsey Cove.
> 
> They were a gift from P.E.I. Premier Wade MacLauchlan last summer and retail between $300 and $500.


 I know PEI is small and and not as newsworthy as other provinces,  but I'm sure I would have remembered the PEI separatists winning their referendum and becoming their own country

 :rofl:


----------



## RocketRichard (16 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yeah, I've been working and paying my taxes for over 51 years. Are you even that old? And I'm still paying myself my pensions and ohip through my taxes Plus all the lazy slugs spending three generations on welfare who dont contribute a ******* thing towards all those things you hold so near and dear.
> 
> I declare every single thing I bring in. If I don't get sent to secondary for duty and taxes that's not my ******* problem. I could be following our PMs example of smuggling in and not declaring our country's $300 sunglasses gift that he was fined $100 for trying to keep. However, I refuse to follow any of his leads. Unlike the career climbers with their outward gushing of all things trudeauesqe, in order to be seen as an obedient supporter of his false jingoism and their own lack of spine hoping to be noticed for advancement. There are many prime examples in our nations capital. I'm not handsome, but I don't see a hypocrite in the mirror either and I sleep just fine. But thanks again for supporting me in retirement like I did for all those retired ahead of me during my 51 year tax paying working life.
> 
> Cheers


Rant on!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I always buy my gas at home. It pays for my health care - and yours, and will some day pay for my pension - and yours, and my VAC pension - and yours, and perhaps even my medicine - and yours.



You are exemplary.

Many of your fellow Canadians, however, live much closer to the economic edge and therefore are price sensitive when it comes to the basics that they need to live.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

Wisconsin isn't a fan of tariffs right now.

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/brewing-problem-u-s-beer-drinkers-pay-more-as-aluminum-tariffs-hit-cans-1.4747348

Also more anecdotal observations on my part.  I was hard pressed to find any made in Canada produce at my local grocery store but now it seems they have plenty and lots of made in Mexico and far less made in the USA produce.

Still, having discovered a local farmer's market I get produce at a better price and better quality.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Wisconsin isn't a fan of tariffs right now.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/brewing-problem-u-s-beer-drinkers-pay-more-as-aluminum-tariffs-hit-cans-1.4747348
> 
> ...



That seems to also be the case in my neck of the woods, too.

However- the real test will be in the months where Canadian gardens do not do all that well.


----------



## Altair (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Wisconsin isn't a fan of tariffs right now.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/radio/checkup/brewing-problem-u-s-beer-drinkers-pay-more-as-aluminum-tariffs-hit-cans-1.4747348
> 
> ...


Darn, they must be blaming Canada for this

Let me read the article.

...

...

...

Nope.


> In the Octopi taproom, where locals enjoy a pint at the end of a work day, customer David Ley says the modest increase in the cost of beer won't stop him from supporting local breweries.
> 
> But Ley believes it will cost Republicans votes in the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.
> 
> "I hope other people around me realize they're paying more for beer, paying more for groceries because of the tariffs. And I hope the Republican party will be held responsible."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Smuggling in?
> 
> https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4718338&ved=2ahUKEwicp5nntaPcAhUCPN8KHcbLC_YQFjAKegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw17cfNLBXQ2oVaL88Ot5IXm&ampcf=1
> I know PEI is small and and not as newsworthy as other provinces,  but I'm sure I would have remembered the PEI separatists winning their referendum and becoming their own country
> ...


OK, I'll wear that. 22hr days are not conducive to me pulling Trudeau gaffes from my brain housing group. It's hard to keep track of his vision for himself vice the rest of us keeping score by his embarrassments. My points still stand as far as my economics. We are not all destined for sainthood as some think they are. We can't afford to be.


----------



## pbi (16 Jul 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I always buy my gas at home. It pays for my health care - and yours, and will some day pay for my pension - and yours, and my VAC pension - and yours, and perhaps even my medicine - and yours.



My view as well. We can't control much in this world, but at least I can decide which shopkeeper or gas station owner's pockets I put my pennies into, and I would much, much rather that be a Canadian pocket if I have the choice. I hadn't thought of the tax angle, but I agree I'd rather pay to support the pensions, health care and defence budget in Canada than in a foreign country.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2018)

pbi said:
			
		

> My view as well. We can't control much in this world, but at least I can decide which shopkeeper or gas station owner's pockets I put my pennies into, and I would much, much rather that be a Canadian pocket if I have the choice. I hadn't thought of the tax angle, but I agree I'd rather pay to support the pensions, health care and defence budget in Canada than in a foreign country.



Again, very commendable. I don't have the luck of having a senior officer pension or the access to corporate world, or a government post in retirement. I have to do what I can. Not complaining, but if I have to modify to make it work, oh well.

The whole tax thing is a bit of a shell though, imo, all the taxes to Ottawa are being given out around the world when it should be spent here so i don't have to shop, in the US, to save. Trudeau can save the world if he wants. Quit using my tax dollars that should be spent in Canada, on Canadians. If Trudeau won't keep our money here, I'd rather mine go to our protective allies to the south, than to an African dictator or to foreign social projects and immigration.reforms hes trying to buy a name with around the world, at our expense. So yeah, keep handing him your cash if that makes you sleep better. 

I worked hard for everything I have, I'm not complaining. However, what I earn.is spent on what I want, not what Trudeau wants.

I'm wondering how many Canadians would starve or quit driving, before they bought US food and goods on the.principal of patriotism.

I haven't looked up any stats but I don't think many hard working, tax paying Canadians with access to the US shopping will change because people in Ottawa or away from the border, wrap themselves up in the flag. Almost sounds like envy or jealousy at not being able to access the US on a daily basis. That just whimsical fantasy though........right?
.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> My wife and I grow enough vegetables to keep us going till Mar/Apr on a postage stamp size lot.



Your postage stamp is so much bigger than mine, currently. My area is also far too well shaded, but this is all temporary.

I did build another small planter this past weekend (three currently in operation, with a fourth almost ready) and will install some small grow lights inside in the next few months. Those will be used to grow (hopefully) lettuce and kale for salads through the winter and to start seedlings much earlier than previously. I also need to build some protective chicken-wire cages to keep animals out, and cold frame covers for two of the planters.

I am still very much in the research/experimental/learning phase, but slowly improving.

We also started home canning a couple of years ago.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I also want it put off until after the mid terms, because if the Democrats take congress ...
> 
> Don't hold your breathe



Sound advice, you give yourself there.

It _*may*_ happen, by a small margin, in the House of Representatives, but that is far from assured at this point, and the Republicans should gain a few seats in the Senate.

The Democrats have no leader, no platform (beyond "We oppose everything that Trump has done, we will raise taxes, throw open the southern border even more, and fine you again if you refuse to buy Obamacare etcetera"), still, most likely, very little money, and are leaning further and further left.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> you think Sheer is giving up on supply management?



That depends on how negotiations go. The US subsidizes farming, and we can apply pressure in that area, or gradually adopt a similar, if not identical, subsidy system to match. I've read both sides of the Supply Management issue, and am yet to be convinced that it is a bad thing - but have not reached a decision one way or another yet. It _seems_ to promote stability, which is a good thing, and enable small independent farms to survive. I am not enthused by large factory farms.

I don't see that as a sacred cow.



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> I know PEI is small and and not as newsworthy as other provinces,  but I'm sure I would have remembered the PEI separatists winning their referendum and becoming their own country



I was, for a brief period in 1978, The Raven, the shadowy mastermind behind RALF (Revolutionary Army for Liberation and Freedom), a PEI separatist movement based in Summerside.

Sadly, "RALF for a Free PEI" did not fire the general public's imagination, the best efforts of my fellow Ralfers and I failed, our dreams of a glorious independent future were dashed, and I was forced to withdraw from the Island in December of that year.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Still, having discovered a local farmer's market I get produce at a better price and better quality.



I've been doing that for a few years, now. I don't find the prices to be better, but the quality definitely is, and I prefer to support local and/or small businesses as much as I can. I do not have the option to avoid supermarkets completely, though, yet.

Be aware that some of these "farmers" are not. It is relatively easy to tell if one is aware that the problem exists, and, once one establishes a decent relationship with an actual farmer/vendor they will usually confirm who is and isn't. I have seen one of the Kingston not-a-farmer's marked vehicle driving around the back of a local Food Basics.

See https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/farmers-markets-lies-marketplace-1.4306231


----------



## Infanteer (16 Jul 2018)

I'll never begrudge a Canadian for shopping for a better deal, even if its out of the country.  This whole "where your taxes go" argument is a bit specious.  Am I somehow screwing my province and not paying my fair share if I buy something out-of-province because the deal is better, thereby sending PST/HST dollars elsewhere?

Honest Canadians pay enough taxes as it is.


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Be aware that some of these "farmers" are not. It is relatively easy to tell if one is aware that the problem exists, and, once one establishes a decent relationship with an actual farmer/vendor they will usually confirm who is and isn't. I have seen one of the Kingston not-a-farmer's marked vehicle driving around the back of a local Food Basics.
> 
> See https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/farmers-markets-lies-marketplace-1.4306231



Sound advice but I’m not too worried.  The Ottawa market was notorious for that but started issuing vendor permits based on whether they are local or just resellers.  Resellers can still sell but they payback more and must indicate they are resellers. I avoid that place though because the prices are definitely too high.  

The one I frequent is closer to manotick.  I’ve been buying from Rochon Farms.  A local farm in Edwards ON.  Nice people.  As for price I get three times more mixed lettuce than I can get at the grocery store.  Three peppers for roughly the same price but they are better quality.  Etc etc.  It’s the ones off the beaten path you need to find.  

Looking to grow some stuff next year as well as I will have a bigger property by then to do that.


----------



## suffolkowner (16 Jul 2018)

There are a lot of stands in some farmers markets that at the very least supplement from the Toronto food terminal. If you ask around you can usually find out though


----------



## Remius (16 Jul 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I'll never begrudge a Canadian for shopping for a better deal, even if its out of the country.  This whole "where your taxes go" argument is a bit specious.  Am I somehow screwing my province and not paying my fair share if I buy something out-of-province because the deal is better, thereby sending PST/HST dollars elsewhere?
> 
> Honest Canadians pay enough taxes as it is.



I agree.  I’m doing my little part but it’s because I can afford to and I’m willing to take the time to do it.  But some people have other priorities and could care less as long a it costs less because they can’t afford it or have other spending priorities.   When a bag of chips costs less than a bag of apples it’s hard to tell people to eat healthier when their budget will only go so far.


----------



## FJAG (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> I agree.  I’m doing my little part but it’s because I can afford to and I’m willing to take the time to do it.  But some people have other priorities and could care less as long a it costs less because they can’t afford it or have other spending priorities.   When a bag of chips costs less than a bag of apples it’s hard to tell people to eat healthier when their budget will only go so far.



Like when the bin of cherries from Washington state are half the price of ones in the bin right next to it from 50 miles down the road in SW Ontario.  ullhair:

 :cheers:


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> The one I frequent is closer to manotick.  I’ve been buying from Rochon Farms.  A local farm in Edwards ON.  Nice people.  As for price I get three times more mixed lettuce than I can get at the grocery store.  Three peppers for roughly the same price but they are better quality.  Etc etc.  It’s the ones off the beaten path you need to find.



I am buying organic (sort of) vegetables, which does tend to increase the cost to producers, so there is a price differential there. Some local farmers do not grow organically - that means that they either use pesticides, or grow naturally but do not wish to expend the money or effort to get so certified, and it's mainly from the latter group that I buy, not necessarily organic. I talk to them about their farming practices, mainly as part of my how-to-do-it-myself learning efforts. They're pretty helpful. Taste is another factor.

I get excellent meat from a farmer who raises her animals naturally - no antibiotics or growth hormones and all grass-fed - and exceeds organic standards but will not get certified, and gives a generous discount when buying in bulk. She does not sell poultry, though, but I just found a fellow who does and I like his practices and the taste of his birds.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jul 2018)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I am buying organic (sort of) vegetables, which does tend to increase the cost to producers, so there is a price differential there. Some local farmers do not grow organically - that means that they either use pesticides, or grow naturally but do not wish to expend the money or effort to get so certified, and it's mainly from the latter group that I buy, not necessarily organic. I talk to them about their farming practices, mainly as part of my how-to-do-it-myself learning efforts. They're pretty helpful. Taste is another factor.
> 
> I get excellent meat from a farmer who raises her animals naturally - no antibiotics or growth hormones and all grass-fed - and exceeds organic standards but will not get certified, and gives a generous discount when buying in bulk. She does not sell poultry, though, but I just found a fellow who does and I like his practices and the taste of his birds.



There are ways...most town, cities and even bases have some sort of community gardens for growing vegetables...I realize that it's not feasible for everyone......

Cheers
Larry


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2018)

There is one not far from me, but am not sure if there are any vacancies. It would not work in my situation, anyway, especially in the research-and-trial phase. I have found some interesting ideas that I am slowly incorporating, but a move is in order in a year or two and that is my best bet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jul 2018)

The whole point of free trade is to be able to buy whatever you want/need at the least possible cost, taxes and all other possible add-ons included.

Tax avoidance (not evasion) sends a useful market signal to government that they are doing something wrong.


----------



## jmt18325 (17 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Again, very commendable. I don't have the luck of having a senior officer pension or the access to corporate world, or a government post in retirement. I have to do what I can. Not complaining, but if I have to modify to make it work, oh well.
> 
> The whole tax thing is a bit of a shell though, imo, all the taxes to Ottawa are being given out around the world



How much more than when anyone else was in power?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Jul 2018)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The whole point of free trade is to be able to buy whatever you want/need at the least possible cost, taxes and all other possible add-ons included.
> 
> Tax avoidance (not evasion) sends a useful market signal to government that they are doing something wrong.



I don't mind paying a reasonable amount of taxes, paying taxes on tax really burns my butt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Like when the bin of cherries from Washington state are half the price of ones in the bin right next to it from 50 miles down the road in SW Ontario.  ullhair:
> 
> :cheers:



Do your research first. Where I'm at they have a Visit the County, Buy Fresh.

I inspected a number of greenhouses. I know their products and symbols. I can buy their products cheaper at Food Basics than at the stand in front of the greenhouse.


----------



## FJAG (17 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Do your research first. Where I'm at they have a Visit the County, Buy Fresh.
> 
> I inspected a number of greenhouses. I know their products and symbols. I can buy their products cheaper at Food Basics than at the stand in front of the greenhouse.



That used to be easier for me when I lived on the lake in Blenheim and there were cherry, peach, apple etc orchards all around us. Living in Strathroy now the best I can do here is the weekly farmers' market in town or the Food Basics or Superstore. It was the Food Basics that had the Washington v Blenheim cherries dilemma for me.

There was just an article on this very subject yesterday. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-cherries-flavour-blenheim-1.4748911

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Jul 2018)

I love cherries. Eat them all the time. Blenheim or Washington, they taste the same.

We used to say the same about hothouse tomatoes and field ones. 30 years ago that was true. Agriculture has come a long way in that respect. People demand consistency. You don't buy something that doesn't taste good because it's cheaper.


----------



## Altair (18 Jul 2018)

For all those who think Andrew Scheer is the solution to Canada's trade issues...

https://nationalpost.com/news/u-s-still-pushing-for-end-to-dairy-supply-management-as-part-of-nafta-talks-diplomat



> Despite recent suggestions to the contrary, U.S officials negotiating a new NAFTA trade deal have demanded that Canada end its supply-management system for dairy and egg products, Ottawa’s deputy ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.
> 
> And that request is a non-starter for Canada, Kirsten Hillman stressed to a conference here.
> 
> The dairy sector has been a surprisingly hot-button issue in wrangling over a new North American Free Trade Agreement, with President Donald Trump repeatedly complaining about protection of the Canadian industry.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-globe-editorial-andrew-scheers-cheesy-trade-war-politics/



> Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer did his part on Tuesday when he released a statement criticizing not U.S. President Donald Trump, who capriciously imposed levies on Canadian steel and aluminum last week, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for the crime of announcing “flexibility” in his position on access to the Canadian dairy market.
> 
> Mr. Scheer called any weakening of the tariffs that shield Canadian milk, eggs and poultry from foreign competition “totally unacceptable” and accused the PM of being duplicitous for saying otherwise to an American audience.
> 
> ...




Totally unacceptable and attacked Trudeau on being flexible about the issue.

So...no, I don't think so.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

http://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-s-farmers-caught-in-crossfire-vent-about-impact-of-trump-tariffs-at-congressional-hearings



> In another sign of growing congressional rebellion against President Donald Trump’s trade wars, a Republican-led committee gave U.S. farmers a platform Wednesday to detail how they’ve been hurt by tariffs imposed on countries like Canada — and the resulting reprisal.
> 
> Fruit growers, cattle ranchers and grain farmers told members of the House of Representatives trade sub-committee that tariffs on imported steel and aluminum had boosted their costs just as agricultural commodity prices are dropping, while retaliation was shrinking overseas markets.
> 
> ...



More of this please. Hurt american pocketbooks and watch politicians start to buckle.


----------



## pbi (19 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> http://nationalpost.com/news/world/u-s-farmers-caught-in-crossfire-vent-about-impact-of-trump-tariffs-at-congressional-hearings
> 
> 
> More of this please. Hurt american pocketbooks and watch politicians start to buckle.



No! Never!! Those farmers hate America!!! And they probably aren't even real farmers-they're probably crypto-liberals paid by the Democrats!! Fake news! Fake news! The media is the Enemy of the People!

Ummmm....was Trump thought up by George Orwell? ???


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jul 2018)

Canada's doing a great job negotiating. So great, that the US is close to a bilateral deal with Mexico before they complete any sort of deal with Canada. Probably all the GBA+ hangups.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-says-hes-getting-closer-to-reaching-a-bilateral-trade-deal-with-mexico


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Canada's doing a great job negotiating. So great, that the US is close to a bilateral deal with Mexico before they complete any sort of deal with Canada. Probably all the GBA+ hangups.
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-says-hes-getting-closer-to-reaching-a-bilateral-trade-deal-with-mexico



Trudeau guys get aced by Mexico. That could explain a lot.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Canada's doing a great job negotiating. So great, that the US is close to a bilateral deal with Mexico before they complete any sort of deal with Canada. Probably all the GBA+ hangups.
> 
> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/trump-says-hes-getting-closer-to-reaching-a-bilateral-trade-deal-with-mexico


You must know the reason that the trade negotiations are currently hung up is because of the supply management issue, why would you say that it is because of the GBA+ instead?

Edit: Better?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> It's so sad that you know better than that, but stoop that low instead.



This time can't be passed off as sarcasm.

Tone Please.

Attack the point, not the person.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This time can't be passed off as sarcasm.
> 
> Tone Please.
> 
> Attack the point, not the person.


Fine, I'll try again.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

https://nationalpost.com/news/national-security-hearing-in-d-c-hears-auto-tariffs-will-trigger-job-losses-higher-prices-and-more-car-thefts



> They tried to be polite, to stress the long history of amity between the two countries.
> 
> But Canadian officials seemed almost astonished Thursday as they made a case for what seemed obvious to them: Canada is not a national security threat to the U.S., and shouldn’t be slapped with devastating tariffs on auto imports.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2018)

I'm finding some of these conversations quite fascinating, and I suspect that the long term effect of people moving towards more self sufficiency by gardening/canning etc. or developing relationships with local farmers might have some very interesting long term effects on how our society works and how Canadians do politics 

Don't forget Alexis de Tocqueville noted that the America he visited was a "nation of associations", where people were connected by ties of locality and solved problems at the local level. This model was largely overturned by Progressivism starting near the end of the 19th century, and Canada has also been pretty enthusiastic about centralizing things since 1968.

I will pass on an anecdote about Supply Management which demonstrates that it no longer serves the purpose it was designed for (I can't remember where I read this). An American company was looking to establish a production facility in Canada to produce and sell "Greek Style" yoghurt. The Canadian competators, despite not having that product, used the quota system to deny the American company the ability to purchase milk to produce the Greek Style yoghurt, causing the company to abandon their plans, deny Canadians a lot of jobs (building the plant and producing the yoghurt) and ultimately farmers were forced to sell their milk as animal feed at a lower price than they would have received from selling it to a commercial dairy producer.

Most dairy is now produced in factory farm outfits, not family farms, and the escalating price fo quotas has essentially driven family dairy producers out of business. Supply management is only good for the rent seekers, not consumers and sometimes not even the farmers themselves.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm finding some of these conversations quite fascinating, and I suspect that the long term effect of people moving towards more self sufficiency by gardening/canning etc. or developing relationships with local farmers might have some very interesting long term effects on how our society works and how Canadians do politics
> 
> Don't forget Alexis de Tocqueville noted that the America he visited was a "nation of associations", where people were connected by ties of locality and solved problems at the local level. This model was largely overturned by Progressivism starting near the end of the 19th century, and Canada has also been pretty enthusiastic about centralizing things since 1968.
> 
> ...


100% correct.

But there is only one party that wants to get rid of supply management.

https://www.libertarian.ca/making_every_canadian_richer



> END SUPPLY MANAGEMENT WHICH FORCES US TO PAY TWICE THE PRICE FOR MILK, CHEESE, EGGS, CHICKEN, AND TURKEY
> Supply management is an outdated system that props up cartels at the expense of every single Canadian. It keeps prices artificially high by imposing exorbitant tariffs on imported goods, like a 300% tax on butter. Daily staples like butter, milk, eggs and chicken are not luxury items, and should not be priced that way. Eliminating supply management would save the average Canadian family more than $500 each and every year. Standing up to the cartels and protecting the pocketbooks of 35 million Canadians is the right plan. We would follow the Australian model, with a gradual phase-out and compensation for farmers.



Every other party wants to keep it, so seeing as how Canadians vote these parties into power, it's fair to say Canada on a whole supports supply management to some extent


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jul 2018)

More likely a combination of things, Libertarians (large L) have issues in getting organized and their ability to actually carry through. The large parties are essentially used to power oligarchies (or are the conduits through with oligarchies exercise power, depending on which way you choose to look at things), so most voters are in the unenviable position of suporintg whichever rent seekers promise to kick back a few crumbs from the table to them.

If derailing supply management would mean losing out on a set of goodies that you desire, then you will likely vote for the plate of goodies and take supply management as part of the deal. Disaggregation and reducing the powers of the State to push tax dollars to rent seekers would go a long way to ending these practices and making things better for all Canadians.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Every other party wants to keep it, so seeing as how Canadians vote these parties into power, it's fair to say Canada on a whole supports supply management to some extent



Balls. Most Canadians, on the whole, haven't got a clue what supply management is in the dairy industry.  What they know is that is apparently an issue in NAFTA, therefore they feel inclined to support it but really don't have a clue why.  

This activation of system justification is not a proper motive, and is no substitute for rational analysis.  

OTOH, when in doubt and the facts are obscure, buy local


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> You must know the reason that the trade negotiations are currently hung up is because of the supply management issue, why would you say that it is because of the GBA+ instead?
> 
> Edit: Better?



It is but one reason. Among others, there is the issue of enforcement of intellectual property rights, US service providers acting like they are sovereign countries that are disinclined to follow the procedural laws of the jurisdictions in which they conduct business- ranging from taxation to subpoena compliance.  

Mechanisms to deal with unfair trade complaints under the current system have also irked the US government when it throws support behind their huge companies like Boeing, mostly because they get their asses handed to them by impartial arbitration authorities, and that won't do....  We are moving towards CETA (slowly) and the EU models of governance. Google was just fined 5 Billion Euro's for its anti-trust practices, and they are about to get body slammed in Canada, the EU and Australia on copyright infringement.  

These US companies are lurking in the background of NAFTA (as are some of our own) and unlike Mexico, Canada has a lot more at stake as an knowledge based economy that goes far beyond the industrial production of milk.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Balls. Most Canadians, on the whole, haven't got a clue what supply management is in the dairy industry.  What they know is that is apparently an issue in NAFTA, therefore they feel inclined to support it but really don't have a clue why.
> 
> This activation of system justification is not a proper motive, and is no substitute for rational analysis.
> 
> OTOH, when in doubt and the facts are obscure, buy local


Canadians could vote for the party that opposes supply management, Politicians who oppose it can leave traditional parties that do support it. None of these things happen.(I'm looking at Bernier, who was offered the leadership of the Libertarian party of Canada)

But if Canadians don't vote against those parties who support it, the LPC, the NDP, the CPC, the Greens and the Bloc, then they are, even if indirectly, supporting it.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2018)

oh come on, in those instances, they haven't got a clue what they are voting for.  the fact that one party or another prevails is a question of a lucky shot, or unlucky miss, depending on the outcome.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> oh come on, in those instances, they haven't got a clue what they are voting for.  the fact that one party or another prevails is a question of a lucky shot, or unlucky miss, depending on the outcome.


If Canadians cared enough about it, they would oppose it. If they opposed it, they would vote against it. If they vote against it, they wouldn't vote for the LPC, CPC, NDP BQ, or Grn parties.

So again, either supply management doesn't bother Canadians, or it doesn't bother them enough to vote against them. Taken the unanimous support for it among the federal political parties, and the people who do vote for them, it can only be considered that Canadians are either indifferent to it, or support it to some extent.


----------



## FJAG (19 Jul 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Balls. Most Canadians, on the whole, haven't got a clue what supply management is in the dairy industry.  What they know is that is apparently an issue in NAFTA, therefore they feel inclined to support it but really don't have a clue why.
> 
> This activation of system justification is not a proper motive, and is no substitute for rational analysis.
> 
> OTOH, when in doubt and the facts are obscure, buy local



General ignorance of the issues is an electorate trait not simply confined to supply management.

What I can't understand is why the Conservative leadership is so insistent on keeping it against all odds? I think the issue was in large part behind the Scheer-Bernier debacle last month. There is clearly a schism between those Conservatives who philosophically favour a free marketplace and those who feel that their rural support depends on retaining it (I tend to think that there aren't enough supply management producers out there to make enough of a difference)

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2018)

there is, no doubt, a rural-urban-metro divide in the CPC. This is not something the current leader seems to be able to "control", in a Stephen Harper sort of way...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Jul 2018)

FJAG said:
			
		

> General ignorance of the issues is an electorate trait not simply confined to supply management.
> 
> What I can't understand is why the Conservative leadership is so insistent on keeping it against all odds? I think the issue was in large part behind the Scheer-Bernier debacle last month. There is clearly a schism between those Conservatives who philosophically favour a free marketplace and those who feel that their rural support depends on retaining it (I tend to think that there aren't enough supply management producers out there to make enough of a difference)
> 
> :cheers:



They want Quebec. I'll be some pissed if they do a Trudeau. Lie through the campaign and then do the opposite.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> If Canadians cared enough about it, they would oppose it. If they opposed it, they would vote against it. If they vote against it, they wouldn't vote for the LPC, CPC, NDP BQ, or Grn parties.
> 
> So again, either supply management doesn't bother Canadians, or it doesn't bother them enough to vote against them. Taken the unanimous support for it among the federal political parties, and the people who do vote for them, it can only be considered that Canadians are either indifferent to it, or support it to some extent.


Unfortunately, I think this is more of a case of "my country, right or wrong".  
In my lonely view, we require supply management in the entire food production industry as a matter of national security on the basis that preserving our ability to feed the population outweighs the free market analysis.  If another country comes about to take control of another's food supply, things get ugly real quick. Again, in my lonely view, the basics of life - food-shelter-medicine-winter heating-etc. ought to supplied within our borders.
We do not need our cereal made in a Chinese dog food plant, or cheese and milk made in the United States.


----------



## Altair (19 Jul 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I think this is more of a case of "my country, right or wrong".
> In my lonely view, we require supply management in the entire food production industry as a matter of national security on the basis that preserving our ability to feed the population outweighs the free market analysis.  If another country comes about to take control of another's food supply, things get ugly real quick. Again, in my lonely view, the basics of life - food-shelter-medicine-winter heating-etc. ought to supplied within our borders.
> We do not need our cereal made in a Chinese dog food plant, or cheese and milk made in the United States.


that could be the issue.  I don't know why canadians support the system to be honest. 

What I do know is that its only in cases of national tragedy and supply management that can get canadian politicians of every stripe to unite together in one voice,  and here,  in the case of supply management, they consistently do that. 

Hell,  we have scheer attacking trudeau for being flexible on the issue. So right on wrong,  its clear canada speaks in one voice on this issue,  and we aren't about to budge,  NAFTA be damned.


----------



## pbi (20 Jul 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More likely a combination of things...If derailing supply management would mean losing out on a set of goodies that you desire, then you will likely vote for the plate of goodies and take supply management as part of the deal. Disaggregation and reducing the powers of the State to push tax dollars to rent seekers would go a long way to ending these practices and making things better for all Canadians.



Well, maybe. But if you look at the massive direct and indirect subsidies the US Govt historically pays under several different Acts to its farmers of various stripes, but particularly to dairy farmers, and how quickly those farmers will rise to defend those subsidies, in my opinion there is another issue here that has nothing to do with great big nasty mysterious _rentier _entities lurking about.

Farmers are mostly in rural ridings (or Congressional Districts). Given the first past the post system that both countries use federally, it's very important for parties to win rural ridings/districts, or states/provinces with a higher percentage of such ridings/districts. The US two-party system and its Electoral College system, as I understand them, both serve to magnify this effect.

You don't win rural votes by pissing off farmers, farm suppliers, or the people who trade with farmers such as the local gas station, Co-op, machinery shop or grocery store. These aren't big nasty _rentiers_: these are just local people, many of whom IMHO are likely quite conservative in their outlook and expect that in exchange for their votes, right-leaning parties will protect their interests.

This, I think, is why neither the free-trading, free-enterrprise GOP, nor its approximate equivalent the CPC, have done much to dismantle the systems on either side of the border.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jul 2018)

Agricultural subsidies are a HUGE fact of life in almost every country. Even Australia and New Zealand, which always claim to be in favour of no tariffs on food and who claim to have low subsidies, have tax systems that provide indirect, legal (under WTO rules) subsidies that are quite generous.

The USA and the EU are amongst the 'worst' ~ by which I mean biggest ~ subsidizers.

Personally I like the AUS/NZ model which aims to achieve 'food security' by using the tax system, rather than direct subsidies, to pay farmers to stay in business. I think tariffs are little more than a tax which consumers pay ~ as our American friends will soon start discovering when the prices go up in WalMart. I think direct subsidies are inefficient because, too often, you end up paying people to grown nothing. Using the tex system to let the farmer 'write off' almost every reasonable expense, including interest on loans, makes more sense to me and it is 'legal and proper' under the WTO's rules.

I think we should follow that example and get rid of supply management and many, even most direct subsidies ~ some indirect subsidies, like underwriting food transport and providing water supply infrastructure should remain in place.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Jul 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agricultural subsidies are a HUGE fact of life in almost every country. Even Australia and New Zealand, which always claim to be in favour of no tariffs on food and who claim to have low subsidies, have tax systems that provide indirect, legal (under WTO rules) subsidies that are quite generous.
> 
> The USA and the EU are amongst the 'worst' ~ by which I mean biggest ~ subsidizers.
> 
> ...



Article from today's Financial Post that compares subsidies between Canada and United States and shows that in many cases the US government subsidizes there there industries just as much as Canada does and in some cases (sugar!) even more so. 

First of four installments about protectionism in Canada and around the world.



> Hey Mr. Trump, when it comes to trade, even America has its sacred cows
> If you are going to call another country out on its trade policies, you’d better be ready to defend your own
> 
> Naomi Powell July 20, 2018 7:17 PM EDT
> ...



Rest of article can be found  here.


----------



## Altair (21 Jul 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Article from today's Financial Post that compares subsidies between Canada and United States and shows that in many cases the US government subsidizes there there industries just as much as Canada does and in some cases (sugar!) even more so.
> 
> First of four installments about protectionism in Canada and around the world.
> 
> Rest of article can be found  here.


long story short,  Americans are hypocrites


----------



## Infanteer (21 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> long story short,  Americans are hypocrites



Ok, time to dial it back.  Your rapid fire posts are fine, but don't sink to this level.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (21 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> long story short,  Americans are hypocrites *all countries act in their own national interests, always.*



FTFY.  Keep it real....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jul 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> long story short,  Americans are hypocrites all countries act in their own national interest, always





			
				PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> FTFY.  Keep it real....


I agree, PPCLI Guy. That's why I believe your post should be further amended as follows:



			
				Altair said:
			
		

> long story short,  Americans are hypocrites all democratic countries act in their own national the political interest of their currently elected officials and their party, always


----------



## FJAG (21 Jul 2018)

Thoughtful article from CNN



> Are we sliding back to the chaos of the 1930s?
> By Tim Lister, CNN
> 
> Updated 8:07 PM ET, Sat July 21, 2018
> ...



Read the rest of the article here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/europe/world-returns-to-1930s-intl/index.html

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jul 2018)

ERC: there are already significant tax concessions granted to the agricultural industry in Canada, and those concessions extend into the cannabis industry (no problem with that, btw). However, the amount of oversight and government financial scrutiny of farmers and agriculture is certainly one of the most burdensome for any non-corporate business in Canada. Farmers in Saskatchewan have long complained they are far more scrutinized than the oil industry, which is rife with flow-through shares and all sorts of complicated tax reduction schemes for investors that the CRA can barely understand themselves....much easier to pick on some poor bastard with a herd of cattle or a couple hundred acres of crop.

On the issue of loan financing, with FCC there is significant loan and operating cash flow assistance to keep farmers afloat if they choose to accept and abide by the rules, which are very time consuming and quite onerous. There is even special financing programs for young farmers under 40. The interest lates are low (near prime), and I'm not convinced tax deductibility of those loans is going to improve anything. Simplifying the tax rules, allowing faster amortization of capex and broadening the range of items for opex and labour costs is definitely something that needs to be looked at. 

The taxation issue is quite a complicated burden right now.  So onerous in fact, that there is a thriving cottage industry of tax specialists just for farmers and agriculture.  I know farmers that have full time jobs off the farm just to make ends meet and in some cases just to pay their taxes, so it is not all gravy in fact I'm quite certain it is difficult at times.

I'll go back to what I said before: food security is national security*. There should be no compromise there, but we have done that. Is supply management the way to do it>> probably not but we have done that.  Is taxation the way to achieve it? Maybe, and we are doing it with room to improve. 

But one thing is for certain, being steam rolled over food in a trade agreement is not the answer. We do not need food from any other country on earth with the exception of maybe sugar and some citrus, it's just stupid that we have allowed this to happen. 

Most importantly, what we really need to do is encourage more people to GTF out of the cities, back into the rural areas, pick up a shovel and dig a fence post hole, drive a tractor, pray for rain, thank the sun and feel the need for a little more Murray McLauchlan and less Lady GaGa. Locally produced is the in thing, its time to capitalize on that and put some of the "culture" back into agriculture.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Jul 2018)

To me, it's just inherently wrong to say to someone, "Here's how much you can grow, you'll sell it all to us and here's what we're going to pay you. And you're not allowed to sell it to anyone but us."


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Jul 2018)

True. There are very few instances where a _monopsony_ is viable beyond a temporary emergency measure to address a shortage of a domestically produced product.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> To me, it's just inherently wrong to say to someone, "Here's how much you can grow, you'll sell it all to us and here's what we're going to pay you. And you're not allowed to sell it to anyone but us."



Monopolies are the name of the game when you get to a certain size. You also be surprised at the restrictions placed on retailers, distributors by manufacturers, telling who to, where, how many, marketing and country the distributors can sell to.


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> To me, it's just inherently wrong to say to someone, "Here's how much you can grow, you'll sell it all to us and here's what we're going to pay you. And you're not allowed to sell it to anyone but us."



This is why I was happy to see the back side of the Wheat Board.

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2018)

Not everyone sees the "Trade Wars" as a bad thing, and Kevin O'Leary points out that the Market apparently believes that there will be a positive outcome, based on the market reaction since the G7 summit and the assumption of tariffs. The potential upside to the President's desire for "no tariffs and no subsidies" is far more alluring than the immediate impact of tariffs.

https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/shark-tank-star-ignore-medias-trump-hysteria-look-at-remarkable-things-hes-actually-done/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=thenewvoice&utm_campaign=can&utm_content=2018-07-25



> ‘Shark Tank’ Star: Ignore Media’s Trump Hysteria, Look at ‘Remarkable’ Things He’s Actually Done
> 
> By Scott Kelnhofer
> July 24, 2018 at 2:53pm
> ...



While the market may not always be right, it is the collective result of literally billions of individual calculations, decisions and intuitions. IF President Trump can use tariffs to bring people to the table and pushed form their initial positions, then new and possibly highly beneficial arrangements and systems can come into being.

Closer to home, we need to realize that President Trump's interests are focused on America's major trade partners, like the EU, China and Japan. If our negotiating position is too far out of line (and trying to use trade deals to promote "progressive" positions and GBA+ certainly would seem to be very much out of the mainstream), then we will simply be crushed under the wheels. So the positive response to this is to put aside the "_Trump's a big meanie_" line and truly look at where the interests of the United States and Canada are aligned, and strengthen that linkage, even while looking to diversify with CETA and TPP (which, incidentally the current Government does not seem to be pursuing with any great energy _even given_ the escalating tariffs and trade barriers being erected by the United States).


----------



## QV (27 Jul 2018)

Got pretty quiet in here since Trump met with the EU about trade and the announcement of the US second quarter GDP.  LOL


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2018)

QV said:
			
		

> Got pretty quiet in here since Trump met with the EU about trade and the announcement of the US second quarter GDP.  LOL



Probably because neither is actually about the trade war between Canada and the US?   :dunno:


----------



## QV (29 Jul 2018)

Do you not believe those two events have any influence on the Canada/US trade war?  Tell me, is the US in a stronger or a weaker position after those two announcements?


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2018)

You said it got quiet in here since those things were announced.  I offered a reason.  If I were to comment on it it would be in another thread not this one. Unless I wanted to make a direct link. 

Or maybe most people don’t see either has having a huge impact yet at all on the current trade war.


----------



## QV (30 Jul 2018)

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trump-just-unveiled-the-new-trade-world-order-canada-not-included

This article is about right IMO.

Trudeau and company are no match for Trump and his administration...sadly we will all pay for it.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jul 2018)

As I have posted several times, Trudeau blotted his copybook at the G7, and Trump is peeved. Captain Canada won't be able to save Canada from the evil Trump as an election platform. It's about politics and the LPC. Canada is secondary.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canada-rejected-in-bid-to-be-part-of-high-level-nafta-talks-between-mexico-and-u-s-sources?video_autoplay=true

*Canada rejected in bid to be part of high-level NAFTA talks between Mexico and U.S.: sources* - 30 Jul 18
_A source said the U.S. side, fuelled in part by Lighthizer’s dislike of Freeland, has decided to not even let Canada back into the process until it makes a substantive concession_

Extract: 1. WASHINGTON, D.C. — American officials have taken the “highly unusual” step of rejecting Canada’s bid to take part in senior-level NAFTA talks between the U.S. and Mexico later this week, sources familiar with the trade negotiations said Monday. One person said attempts by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland to get a seat at the table in Washington Thursday were either ignored, or spurned outright by the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. Another source said the request to be at the meeting was made in a low-key fashion “so as not to spark a diplomatic incident” and was followed by “a retreat to diplomatic silence.”

            2. Indeed, recent developments point to a steady souring of relations between Ottawa and the White House. Formal, three-way talks to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement have not been held since May, though had been expected to restart after the Mexican presidential election earlier this month.

            3. “Until Canada signals to the White House or tells them even privately ‘We’re going to give you something that you want,’ they’re going to be on the outside looking in,” said the person, citing private discussions with administration officials.

            4. The source who cited the American expectation that Canada offer some kind of significant offer to get talks going again, said the situation is not helped by Lighthizer’s apparent enmity for Freeland. That ironically stems from the much-touted Canadian charm offensive, which saw various politicians meet with members of Congress, who have in turn frequently criticized Trump’s approach to trade. “In his mind, she went around his back (as Trudeau did at the G7) all over Capitol Hill,” said the person. “Their whole charm offensive, which I think was a good idea, Lighthizer views as an end-run.”

Possibly Canada will give up:

- A new chapter on gender rights;
- A new chapter on Indigenous rights;
- A new chapter on labour standards; or horrors
- Protection of Canada's supply-management system for dairy and poultry.


----------



## Altair (30 Jul 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Possibly Canada will give up:
> 
> - A new chapter on gender rights;


 please prove where any Americans have said this is a hangup,  for there is no evidence of it





> - A new chapter on Indigenous rights;


 please prove where any Americans have said this is a hangup,  for there is no evidence of it





> - A new chapter on labour standards; or horrors


 please prove where any Americans have said this is a hangup,  for there is no evidence of it





> - Protection of Canada's supply-management system for dairy and poultry.


Please show where Andrew Scheer will not fight tooth and nail to protect dairy farmers over this issue.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jul 2018)

Altair: 





> please prove where any Americans have said this is a hangup,  for there is no evidence of it



You and I don't know because we aren't in the meetings.

Altair:





> Please show where Andrew Scheer will not fight tooth and nail to protect dairy farmers over this issue.



Unfortunately, the (powerful? Don't know why) Cdn dairy cartel is forcing Cdn families to pay exorbitant prices, compared to the US consumer, for their products. This cartel is holding Canada hostage in the NAFTA negotiations because, shit I don't know why.  It is Canada's position to protect the cartel come hell or high water. 

Thus, no deal with the US cause I suspect Trump wants it gone.


----------



## Altair (30 Jul 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Altair:
> You and I don't know because we aren't in the meetings.
> 
> Altair:
> ...


of course we don't know. 

But people are still saying that Canada is asking for 

A new chapter on gender rights;
A new chapter on Indigenous rights;
A new chapter on labour standards

Despite having no evidence that canada is asking for any of those things. 

The only thing being leaked to the press(on both sides of the border)  is the 5 year sunset clause and the supply management program. 

The latter of which is a big partisan (really tri partisan issue since the NDP isn't giving it up either) in which the two main parties are fighting about who defends the dairy cartel the most,  so to say that its the liberals screwing Canada on that is a tad bit disingenuous. 

Remember,  its the CPC who went after the LPC for being "flexible" on the issue.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Jul 2018)

Altair: 





> Despite having no evidence that Canada is asking for any of those things



Google it. Lots of news stories right from the beginning, but I guess they were all fake.

Your reply missed the point: why is this cartel holding up a deal? I don't care if all parties support it. That does make it right for Cdns. Do you think if dairy/poultry prices dropped 60% or so, Cdn consumers would want to go back to five buck jug of milk when they could buy it for two bucks?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Jul 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Altair:
> You and I don't know because we aren't in the meetings.



So what are you basing your assertions on then?


----------



## Altair (31 Jul 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Altair:
> Google it. Lots of news stories right from the beginning, but I guess they were all fake.


 Fake?  No,  they were real. But these are negotiations,  and I have bo double these opening positions were quickly moved from. Its a common tactic in negotiations,  demand something outrageous that you have no intention of getting,  but can claim that you "sacrificed" or compromised from these positions.  The USA moved on some pretty outrageous opening positions as well, so the fact that we are not hearing about them probably means that they are no longer on the table





> Your reply missed the point: why is this cartel holding up a deal? I don't care if all parties support it. That does make it right for Cdns. Do you think if dairy/poultry prices dropped 60% or so, Cdn consumers would want to go back to five buck jug of milk when they could buy it for two bucks?


The only reason I can think of is that with all the subsidies american dairy gets, it would amount to dumping if they were allowed unfettered access to our dairy market. You know,  the thing they constantly accuse the BC government and BC lumber companies of doing.  Nobody like it. 

That said,  I supported Bernier for leader of the CPC,  with the hopes that he would kill supply management (not to let the Americans swoop in mind you,  but for Canadian producers to compete with each other and drop prices domestically,  so I doubt even bernier would lower the tariffs). But then we get Andrew Scheer,  who shamelessly panders to the dairy cartel,  so in truth,  the LPC is probably the most flexible of the 3 major parties in terms of the dairy cartel, so I wouldn't pin that impending disaster on Trudeaus feet. 

So while the Libs have not done the best job (and to be fair,  neither has america) on these renegotiations,  I would hope that you at least be fair in your criticisms. No Canadian party was expected to need to go through this while campaigning in 2015.


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2018)

Seems Canadians still want to travel to the U.S. despite Trump and despite a trade war. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/canada-tourist-travel-to-united-states-increase-since-trump-1.4764663


----------



## FJAG (2 Aug 2018)

> Maxime Bernier Says He's The Only One Who Wants Truly Free Trade With U.S.
> 
> OTTAWA — Conservative MP Maxime Bernier says he's the only politician in Ottawa who supports truly free trade with the U.S., and while it's not his role to negotiate NAFTA with U.S. President Donald Trump, he thinks it's "sad" he's the only one who wants to put supply management on the trading table.
> 
> ...



https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/02/maxime-bernier-nafta-us-free-trade_a_23494521/?utm_hp_ref=ca-homepage

The problem is that milk is a product whose demand is artificially generated through aggressive advertising extolling somewhat exaggerated health benefits. 



> . . . According to a study of 107,000 Swedish adults published in the medical journal BMJ, a diet rich in milk could have detrimental health consequences.. . . They conclude that the findings "question the validity" of the long-held belief that drinking milk has net health benefits, although they caution that further research is needed.
> 
> There's just not a lot of evidence supporting dairy industry claims that drinking milk is good for you, writes Indiana University School of Medicine Prof Aaron E Carroll for the New York Times.
> 
> ...



https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-30091795

The whole structure of supply management came about in the 1950s and 60s because there was an oversupply of milk in the Canadian market as Britain ( a large importer of Canadian dairy) turned to the EU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_farming_in_Canada#History

Similarly, in the US there has been a large downturn in milk consumption since the heydays of the 60' and 70s and American farmers are finding themselves with surplus supplies



> 2015 - US Sales of Dairy Milk Fall as Non-Dairy Milk Sales Rise
> 
> "Driven by negative health perceptions, reduced retail prices and exports and a growing number of non-dairy alternatives, the US dairy milk market has declined in recent years, as new research from Mintel reveals that sales of dairy milk decreased 7 percent in 2015 ($17.8 billion) and are projected to drop another 11 percent through 2020. Seen as a better-for-you (BFY) alternative to dairy milk, non-dairy milk offerings continue to see strong growth, with gains of 9 percent in 2015 to reach $1.9 billion."



https://milk.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000018



> . . . Just three decades ago, America was a milk guzzling nation. About 247 pounds of milk was consumed every year.
> 
> But consumption dropped to 154 pounds in 2016, according to the United States Department of Agriculture. . . .



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/06/08/dairy-farmers-hit-hard-by-declining-demand.html

(As an aside, the drop of USD17.8 Billion in the US industry is roughly equivalent the Canadian milk industry's  total contribution to our GDP (CAD18.9 Billion))

I remember back in the late 50s and early 60s how we were pushed into consuming milk: the creation of "dairy" servings in our food charts, free milk for kids at school, constant advertising that we needed milk to grow strong bones etc. There may have been a time in the post WW2 years where nutrition wasn't the best and milk had some benefits but these days the vast majority of us have access to healthy foods (even if we choose unhealthy ones) Take a look at the nutrition chart on your carton of milk and see what you get. You'll find it's less than you expected and is mostly what you already get from other foods.

I'm not down on milk. I drink some myself from time to time. I just don't think that the milk industry (formed by a small closed club of high end producers mostly in Quebec and Ontario -- and, for that matter, the egg and poultry industry) are worth: firstly, in being legislatively propped up by artificially high consumer prices and secondly, being the reason we should all fall on our swords in the NAFTA talks.

I'm with Bernier on this one. I can't see why we Conservatives are taking the position we are. It goes against our basic philosophy and, quite frankly, there aren't enough rural votes involved to make it a politically sound position. One could get more votes by championing the consumer side of the argument.

 [cheers]


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Aug 2018)

FJAG, 

I am the son of a former dairy farmer. He got out of the business in the 1970s, just as quotas were coming in.

Even with that history and with still knowing some active dairy farmers, I cannot support supply management.

It distorts the entire market and is preventing some much needed innovation in our farm/food production sector. For example, how many cheese/yogurt producers has Canada forgone over the past few years, because new entries to the market cannot secure milk supply?

Let supply management go, already.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Aug 2018)

Agree, as posted several times. It's a strong cartel, somewhat like the CWB  (which only curtailed western farmers). Why are tankers banned on the western coast of Canada and not the eastern coast?


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> FJAG,
> 
> I am the son of a former dairy farmer. He got out of the business in the 1970s, just as quotas were coming in.
> 
> ...


I would 100 percent back the removal of supply management, and wish Bernier had won the leadership over Scheer for that reason, but I that would not mean I would allow the Americans to flood our market.

Kills supply management, but keep the tariffs is my take on it. At least until the Americans remove all subsidies for their dairy farmers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Aug 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> I would 100 percent back the removal of supply management, and wish Bernier had won the leadership over Scheer for that reason, but I that would not mean I would allow the Americans to flood our market.
> 
> Kills supply management, but keep the tariffs is my take on it. At least until the Americans remove all subsidies for their dairy farmers.



I would agree to that. Or remove tariffs, but have our dairy subsidy structure exactly match the US structure. Wouldn't that make an interesting bargaining ploy?


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I would agree to that. Or remove tariffs, but have our dairy subsidy structure exactly match the US structure. Wouldn't that make an interesting bargaining ploy?


It would be. And it's an easy way around the supply management nightmare that all canadian political parties are currently locked into.

Wouldn't help the consumer or taxpayer much though. All the money that we currently pay into overpriced dairy products would just be spent in equivalent taxes that prop up the dairy industry instead.

It's a shell game really.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Aug 2018)

No kidding.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2018)

At this point, it all appears to be semantics. Trudeau and Freeland, took a gamble, bargained in bad faith and lost. Now the whole country loses while the rest of the world moves on to trade agreements with the US. It's hard to tell whether this was really their plan all along. It would fit with him backstabbing Trump and throwing away the deal that was on the table. Trudeau and Butts have been looking for ways to drive our economy into the dirt and they may have succeeded. Trudeau has not looked after Canada since taking office. No security, no borders, no trade, more taxes. I really can't think of anything he's done to strengthen our country, economy, militarily, trade or international diplomacy. All on top of giving away all of our hard earned tax money to questionable causes around the globe.

YMMV of course.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> At this point, it all appears to be semantics. Trudeau and Freeland, took a gamble, bargained in bad faith and lost. Now the whole country loses while the rest of the world moves on to trade agreements with the US. It's hard to tell whether this was really their plan all along. It would fit with him backstabbing Trump and throwing away the deal that was on the table. Trudeau and Butts have been looking for ways to drive our economy into the dirt and they may have succeeded. Trudeau has not looked after Canada since taking office. No security, no borders, no trade, more taxes. I really can't think of anything he's done to strengthen our country, economy, military, trade or international diplomacy. All on top of giving away all of our hard earned tax money to questionable causes around the globe.
> 
> YMMV of course.


Oh boy, let me try to do my best with this one. 

Which country has signed a trade agreement with the United states to date?  The closest America has gotten is a handshake with the EU to not put more tariffs on European goods in exchange for a non commital intention to buy more US soybeans and LNG.

Mexico may be closing in on a deal with the USA,  but within NAFTA, means it still cannot be ratified without Canada. Also Mexico stands united with canada about no sunset clause. 

The Canadian economy is ticking along at a rate of 2.6 percent growth

Trudeau and the liberals have negotiated both the TPP and CETA. 

He bought a pipeline,  approved two others,  supported steel workers and the aerospace industry and unemployment is at its lowest point in decades. 

I'm assuming this post was just hyperbole.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Aug 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> The Canadian economy is ticking along at a rate of 2.6 percent growth



Wrong. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statscan-gdp-economy-1.4685318 1.3% for first half of the year, on pace for 1.8% projected growth for the year. In fact, the average growth is the same as the previous government's growth rates after the recession in 2008, which indicates their policies have done nothing. In fact, Trudeau economic policies may actually hinder economic growth as household spending is a key driver, and with their carbon tax they'll be taking big chunks out of the average household's spending: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadian-economy-shifting-to-a-lower-gear-in-2018-677379813.html

CETA was signed in Oct 2016, after years of negotiations under the previous government. The Liberals have also refused summer sittings requested by the Tories so that TPP could be ratified before the fall.

Which 2 pipelines? You cannot count Kinder Morgan as both approved and purchased. Government policy caused us to have to buy Kinder Morgan or else it would have had the plug pulled, its also still not starting the major construction due to protests and legal challenges. Keystone XL was already approved, the hold up was the US government. Once the President changed, it was approved, nothing the Liberals did made Keystone XL happen. Line 3 is the only one to actually have work done. Energy East was vital to Canadian independance from foreign oil, and would have given good jobs to a hard hit Atlantic Canada. It was cancelled to preserve seats in Quebec.

The problem you're not grasping with Canada cut out of high level NAFTA talks between the US and Mexico is that if you have 2 of 3 parties involved on the same page, Canada gets squeezed as the odd man out. Sure, Mexico won't budge on some of the long-shot issues the US has raised, but if they cut a deal for other concessions and then turn the screws to us to accept, we're left with very little bargaining power.

Colourful one liners are nice, but maybe actual research needs to be done.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Aug 2018)

It's hard to view issues in black and white while wearing rose coloured glasses.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2018)

Mexico will throw us under the bus in a second flat if it means a deal with the US. Just as we are likely to do to them.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wrong. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/statscan-gdp-economy-1.4685318 1.3% for first half of the year, on pace for 1.8% projected growth for the year. In fact, the average growth is the same as the previous government's growth rates after the recession in 2008, which indicates their policies have done nothing.


 Very true,  the number I sited was a 2.6 percent increase over last may. Still, economists do expect GDP growth of 1.5 to 2.0 growth for this year,  so the economy is still growing,  and the economy isn't being "driven into the ground" as others have stated. 





> In fact, Trudeau economic policies may actually hinder economic growth as household spending is a key driver, and with their carbon tax they'll be taking big chunks out of the average household's spending: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canadian-economy-shifting-to-a-lower-gear-in-2018-677379813.html


  And the same money taken out of the economy due to carbon taxes will be given to canadians in forms of rebates.  I'm sure a lot of that money is going right back into the economy. 
As for the growth of the Canadian economy,  I think its a harsh to say that the governments policies have done nothing to promote growth. We are coming off a year of 3 percent growth after all,  so its not like the economy struggling,  its doing rather well all things considered.   





> CETA was signed in Oct 2016, after years of negotiations under the previous government. The Liberals have also refused summer sittings requested by the Tories so that TPP could be ratified before the fall.


  Correct,  negotiated by both parties.  But negotiated by both parties still means the liberals played their part in getting the deal done,  so saying that one can't think of anything he's done to strengthen our country, economy, military, trade is a case of selective memory. 





> Which 2 pipelines? You cannot count Kinder Morgan as both approved and purchased. Government policy caused us to have to buy Kinder Morgan or else it would have had the plug pulled, its also still not starting the major construction due to protests and legal challenges.


 I can count it, 
I will count it, because it was approved, and later purchased in order for it to not die. The only government policy that helped to convince the original owners to back away can be found in BC





> Keystone XL was already approved, the hold up was the US government. Once the President changed, it was approved, nothing the Liberals did made Keystone XL happen.


 True,  but they still support it, and pushed both president obama and the current president to have it approved,  it is not like they sat on their hands and did nothing





> Line 3 is the only one to actually have work done.


 Yes,  so that makes 3 that they have worked on trying to get done. 





> Energy East was vital to Canadian independance from foreign oil, and would have given good jobs to a hard hit Atlantic Canada. It was cancelled to preserve seats in Quebec.


 3 of 5 isn't bad. I believe that the 3 approved take care of Alberta current export capacity as well,  unless the numbers have changed in that regard over the last two years. 





> The problem you're not grasping with Canada cut out of high level NAFTA talks between the US and Mexico is that if you have 2 of 3 parties involved on the same page, Canada gets squeezed as the odd man out. Sure, Mexico won't budge on some of the long-shot issues the US has raised, but if they cut a deal for other concessions and then turn the screws to us to accept, we're left with very little bargaining power.


 Not ideal,  but the parts where the USA is making headway with Mexico isn't parts that really concern Canada. From what the Mexicans are saying, its making progress in regards to the auto sector,  about the country of origin percentage and the low wages paid to mexican auto workers. Not exactly something canada has to be super concerned about. No progress has been made in terms of the US sunset clause,  one of the canadian holdups(as reported by the press on both sides of the border)  and as far as the canadian dairy sector,  I don't see Mexico having a dog in that fight. As it stands,  NAFTA isn't dead,  its still in effect,  and without knowing what deal Canada ends up with its premature to be saying things like "Now the whole country loses while the rest of the world moves on to trade agreements with the US. They were critized for their negotiating tactics during both CETA and TPP and those deals turned out ok, so if they were open to being critized they should also get credit for helping close the deals. Also,  to date America has walked away from two trade agreements,  maybe 3, with no sign they will enter the TPP and their trade deal with the EU stalled,  maybe dead. 





> Colourful one liners are nice, but maybe actual research needs to be done.


You were very correct about GDP growth, mea culpa on that point. I did mix up numbers on that one. 

As for the rest,  the liberals did work on the two trade agreements, they did push  and approve 3 pipelines, help steel and aerospace industries, the economy is still growing, unemployment is at a 4 year low,  and seeing as we have yet to see what the final NAFTA deal looks like,  we can't say who is going to come out the winner,  so I think that reecemans post was hyperbole and I will stand by that statement.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2018)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's hard to view issues in black and white while wearing blue tinted glasses.


FYP


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2018)

Altair said:
			
		

> Not ideal,  but the parts where the USA is making headway with Mexico isn't parts that really concern Canada. From what the Mexicans are saying, its making progress in regards to the auto sector,  about the country of origin percentage and the low wages paid to mexican auto workers. Not exactly something canada has to be super concerned about. No progress has been made in terms of the US sunset clause,  one of the canadian holdups(as reported by the press on both sides of the border)  and as far as the canadian dairy sector,  I don't see Mexico having a dog in that fight.


https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canada-need-not-worry-about-u-s-and-mexico-meeting-in-two-way-nafta-talks-analysts-say

Just going to quote myself for a second here, because, apparently the left leaning National Post stole my idea.



> The threat is that if Lighthizer gets a deal with Mexico on chapter 19, he could then push Canada to agree. Diaz said that would be a mistake for both countries, as mounting U.S. protectionism could make biased anti-dumping and countervailing decisions more common.
> 
> “It is my understanding that Mexico decided a while back that that was more of a Canadian issue,” said Diaz. “Mexico said ‘Let them fight that battle, we won’t.’ ”
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (3 Aug 2018)

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-overcomes-trumps-metal-tariffs-with-record-exports?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1533303467



> Canada’s merchandise trade deficit was lower than forecast after the U.S. imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, as oil producers and aircraft makers led exports to a record high.
> 
> The trade gap narrowed to $626 million in June, down from $2.7 billion a month earlier, Statistics Canada said Friday in Ottawa. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg were expecting a deficit of $2.3 billion.
> 
> Exports rose 4.1 per cent to a record $50.7 billion, with energy shipments rising 7.1 per cent to their highest since 2014 and aircraft sales jumping by almost 45 per cent. The return of several Canadian refineries to production after shutdowns also played a role in the 0.2 per cent decline in imports as demand for foreign gasoline tumbled.



economy looks okay to me.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Aug 2018)

Mexico and the United States seem to be closing in on a deal. If Canada continues to sit on the sidelines, then the negotiating position might be reduced to agreeing or disagreeing with a done deal.

https://www.recorder.ca/news/world/mexico-and-u-s-appear-close-to-deal-on-key-auto-content-rules-as-canada-remains-on-nafta-sidelines/wcm/86e7ec96-4023-4f6e-8651-aee562212534



> *Mexico and U.S. appear close to deal on key auto content rules, as Canada remains on NAFTA sidelines*
> The two countries were to meet again on Thursday, again without Canada, while Canadian officials met in Ottawa Wednesday to plot out their strategy
> Tom Blackwell
> Published on: August 8, 2018 | Last Updated: August 9, 2018 12:19 PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Xylric (9 Aug 2018)

Speaking on the dairy issue, I care less about the supply dynamics and more about the quality standards - the US uses an entirely different set of rules than we do, and the last time I was in the US, I got sick from milk which by their standards was perfectly safe to drink.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2018)

I don't drink milk after its buy date but I have had food poisoning from my local Chinese restraint and once from McDonalds when they were selling pulled pork.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2018)

Xylric said:
			
		

> Speaking on the dairy issue, I care less about the supply dynamics and more about the quality standards - the US uses an entirely different set of rules than we do, and the last time I was in the US, I got sick from milk which by their standards was perfectly safe to drink.



Xylric: Sorry for your experience but I think that there may be something else going on there other than different standards.    I think I am reasonably safe in saying that US and Canadian standards are broadly the same - despite different state and provincial interpretations.  Most jurisdictions have ties to the original standards promulgated in Oregon and all use the same time-temperature relations for pasteurization (161 F for 16 secs) with higher temperatures and shorter times for Extended Shelf Life and UHT milks.  I could be wrong but I have been working with food and dairy plants on both sides of the line for about 40 years.  Generally speaking there are some niggling differences between the US and Canada on standards, just enough to make life difficult, but nothing that I would classify as remotely being a health risk.  And I have fed my family on both sides of the border as well - just as I have in Europe.  In none of those places did I feel the need to eat anything other than what the locals eat.  

But there again I am not into specialized diets.

The equipment and equipment standards are virtually the same around the world.  

Again, I'm sorry for your experience - but I would suggest the risk is the same within and between provinces as it is within and between states and countries.


----------



## Xylric (9 Aug 2018)

Well, it *was* part of a batch that was recalled, I later found out - after returning to Canada. Thankfully no lasting impact on my health.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2018)

A quick search of the FDA Recall/ Withdrawl site shows far and away, the biggest problem with recalls is in the adulterated milk products. Almond milk, soy milk, chocolate milk, etc. Regular pasteurized milk, not so much. Probably comparable to Canada's.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Aug 2018)

Xylric said:
			
		

> Well, it *was* part of a batch that was recalled, I later found out - after returning to Canada. Thankfully no lasting impact on my health.



Glad to hear that.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2018)

I hate to say "I told you so", but the predictions upthread about Mexico or any coalition of nations opposing the United States or coming on side for Canada have proven to be false. The Saudi Arabia fiasco is another, parallel example of how Canada is not "back", but simply irrelevant. The long term effect will not be good for Canada.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4382233/donald-trump-trade-deal-canada-mexico/



> *Donald Trump: ‘Canada must wait’ on trade deal, but Mexican one is coming nicely*
> Jessica Vomiero By Jessica Vomiero
> National Online Journalist	 Global News
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Aug 2018)

:Tin-Foil-Hat: Anyone think that maybe, given Trudeau's globalist agenda, he and Butts are ruining Canada on purpose? :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Infanteer (12 Aug 2018)

No.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :Tin-Foil-Hat: Anyone think that maybe, given Trudeau's globalist agenda, he and Butts are ruining Canada on purpose? :Tin-Foil-Hat:



I think the real issue is the bubble surrounding the Laurentian Elites has not been sufficiently breached by the events of the outside world yet. While people scurrying around in various cubical farms in Ottawa may sincerely believe GBA+ is the lens through which the world needs to be engaged, they are totally unprepared to face resurgent nationalism from America, poo-poo the idea of a Brexit, haven't the slightest clue why the AfD, _Movimento 5 Stelle_ or Viktor Orban are being elected/rising in the polls in Europe. Their total lack of urgency in dealing with the collapse of NAFTA, or even not holding special sessions in Parliament to rapidly implement CETA/TPP or look for alternatives to NAFTA, and they way they were blind sided by Saudi Arabia certainly doesn't speak to their readiness to govern either.

No, the major effort of the Liberals has always been to massage their image and find ways to appeal to various "tribes" of Canadian voters in an effort to remain electable and capable of supplying pork to their crony's and rent seekers.

In 2019 they will run against President Trump and likely win based on appeals to Canada's inherent Anti-Americanism, and we will be reaping the negative consequences likely out to 2028.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> No.



Speaking for everyone? Or just yourself.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Aug 2018)

Lol.  Why would you assume I spoke for anyone else?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Lol.  Why would you assume I spoke for anyone else?


 Yeah, about 20 min later, I looked again and it didn't make sense. I was going to pull it down and went full on senior. Phone rang, I had a guy wanting to clean ducts I don't have.  While I'm trying to get rid of this guy when I see my postal guy walking down my steps, I  go check my box. Open my door there's a notice saying he tried to deliver, with a time, 20 min later. Caught the prick and got my package. Fell asleep reading the instruction book and when I got back, you'd already responded. Me culpa. You can clean it if you want.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2018)

More detail on how America and Mexico are doing an end run around Canada:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/10/nafta-update-president-trump-notes-progress-with-mexico-on-bilateral-trade-preparing-different-bilat-terms-for-canada/



> *NAFTA Update: President Trump Notes Progress With Mexico on Bilateral Trade – Preparing Different BiLat Terms For Canada…*
> Posted on August 10, 2018	by sundance
> 
> Canada is FUBAR. No-one quite knows how FUBAR Canada is, because no-one has  followed the brilliant Wolverine crew closely enough to spot the strategy.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2018)

More self inflicted pain on the Canadian economy. At this rate, a turnaround in 2028 is starting to look optimistic.....

https://www.wsj.com/articles/canada-backtracks-on-a-carbon-tax-1534110070



> *Canada Backtracks on a Carbon Tax*
> Justin Trudeau’s Liberals try to stop a stampede of capital out of the country.
> By Mary Anastasia O’Grady
> Aug. 12, 2018 5:41 p.m. ET
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Aug 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More detail on how America and Mexico are doing an end run around Canada:
> 
> https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/08/10/nafta-update-president-trump-notes-progress-with-mexico-on-bilateral-trade-preparing-different-bilat-terms-for-canada/



This analysis of "Team Wolverine" plans, fails on points 3 and 4, as there already exists a bilateral free-trade agreement that reverts effectiveness upon dissolution of NAFTA:

Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (eff. Oct 4, 1987, superseded by NAFTA Jan 1, 1989).

I'll wait just a wee bit longer before I hop on the "Yup, Canada is totally screwed over by the US and Mexico" bandwagon.

op:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2018)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I'll wait just a wee bit longer before I hop on the "Yup, Canada is totally screwed over by the US and Mexico" bandwagon.
> 
> op:
> 
> ...



And right now, it's our own fault. If this goes south, Trudeau gets to carry that basket all by himself.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2018)

Will Canada's trade die because of the dairy cartel? Did the Conservatives support the dairy cartel strategically, thus if the Liberals bow to US pressure and it goes out the window, the Conservatives say it Trudeau's fault? 

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/nafta-deal-mexico-us-sign-bilateral-trade-pact

*'A big day for trade': U.S., Mexico reach deal to replace NAFTA* - 27 Aug 18
_Trump said he planned to end the current NAFTA treaty and replace it with the new deal negotiated with Mexico, potentially leaving out Canada_

President Donald Trump said he would terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement and sign a new trade accord with Mexico, potentially leaving Canada out of the bloc. Trump announced the agreement with Mexico in a hastily arranged Oval Office event Monday with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto joining by conference call. Pena Nieto said he is “quite hopeful” Canada would soon be incorporated in the revised agreement, while Trump said that remains to be seen.

Trump said he would speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “in a little while” and hoped to begin negotiations with him “almost immediately.”

As he announced the move, Trump said he would drop the name NAFTA from the accord because of its unpopularity.

“We’re going to call it the United States/Mexico Trade Agreement,” he said. NAFTA “has a bad connotation because the United States was hurt very badly by NAFTA for many years.” The president hailed the Mexico agreement as “a big day for trade.” The peso rose ahead of Trump’s remarks. U.S. stocks also advanced, with auto suppliers and rail companies among the top gainers.

There is no deal reached yet with Canada, people familiar with the agreement said. The northern neighbour has been on the sidelines of the talks since July as Mexico and the U.S focused on settling differences.

A spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland issued a statement on Monday that warned against jumping to conclusions. “Canada’s signature is required,” spokesman Adam Austen said in an email. “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class” and “we will continue to work toward a modernized NAFTA.” (But there will be no NAFTA: Trump said he will scarp it) Nieto said in a tweet on Monday that he spoke with Trudeau and stressed the importance of Canada rejoining NAFTA talks.

BILATERAL PACT

Still, an accord between the U.S. and Mexico is the biggest development in talks that began a year ago, punctuated by Trump’s repeated threats to quit altogether. Significant breakthroughs came during the past several days of bilateral talks on automobiles and energy. The three countries trade more than $1 trillion annually, much of it under the pact. There is one difference left to iron out, Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo told reporters early on Monday as he entered the Washington office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office where negotiations are going on. He declined to identify the issue.

CANADA APPROVAL

Talks to update NAFTA began a year ago, but in recent weeks have been held between just the U.S. and Mexico. The U.S. president says the deal has led to hundreds of thousands of lost American jobs, and he promised to either change it to be more favourable to the U.S., or withdraw. The U.S. push to finish NAFTA talks comes at the same time it’s in a spiralling trade war with China, and has threatened to place tariffs on cars imported from major manufacturing centers in Asia and Europe — efforts that have created new uncertainty for many businesses and investors.

Talks between the U.S. and Mexico had focused largely on cars. The U.S. wanted to bring back auto manufacturing jobs that had gone to Mexico. The countries are said to have agreed that automakers who don’t comply with the new NAFTA rules will pay a 2.5 per cent tariff, the same as they would if they skirted the existing NAFTA, while any new Mexican plants wouldn’t have a guarantee. That could potentially expose them to U.S. auto tariffs of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent, which Trump is considering under national security grounds. The new rules would also likely require key components to have more domestic content.

Jesus Seade, the NAFTA representative for Mexican president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, has predicted that the nations will agree on a softened version of a so-called “sunset clause,” an automatic expiration after five years — a key U.S. demand. The recent push for a deal is in part to have it signed before the new president takes office in December.

That would be essential, as the sunset clause was a major sticking point — erupting, for instance, at the Group of Seven summit in June. Other key issues are Chapter 19 anti-dumping panels, which the U.S. wants to kill but which may be a deal-breaker for Canada, as well as Canada’s protected dairy sector, which Trump is targeting to dismantle.

How quickly Canada will rejoin talks remains unclear, Canada’s Freeland is in Europe this week. Even once Canada agrees, any NAFTA deal between the three countries would have to be ratified. Timelines set out under U.S. trade law mean that would almost certainly be done by the next U.S. Congress, raising the prospect of further hurdles.


----------



## Ashkan08 (27 Aug 2018)

Even when/if we do come to a good deal with the U.S and Mexico, we should still learn not to rely too much on a single country as much as possible.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08, without boring everyone else here, please Google the results of all Trudeau's trade negotiations with other countries. Start with China and the TPP.


----------



## Ashkan08 (27 Aug 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Ashkan08, without boring everyone else here, please Google the results of all Trudeau's trade negotiations with other countries. Start with China and the TPP.



I meant for Canada to participate in more trade negotiations and agreements *after * this NAFTA dispute. The TPP was signed by Canada before Trump's election and thus before the NAFTA deal was revisited. The deal with China however is a whole different story. The Canada-China trade talks were stalled before the tariffs the U.S put on China came into effect. Now China seems more serious about having trade talks with Canada.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/china-says-always-ready-to-restart-free-trade-talks-with-canada


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Aug 2018)

NAFTA is dead. A US/CA trade deal is somewhat possible, but NAFTA is dead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Even when/if we do come to a good deal with the U.S and Mexico, we should still learn not to rely too much on a single country as much as possible.



Canada's lumbers industry has gone from a 80% reliance on the US market in the 90's to 50% currently. If we can get a NG pipe to the coast, we can significantly cut the amount of NG flowing to the US as well. The biggest current danger for Canada is the auto sector, which Canada may take a significant hit on.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Aug 2018)

Seems to me that the bargaining power of Canada is much reduced with China without NAFTA to back up the economy. 10 years ago would have been a good time to make basic, no frills (ie none of the social engineering) trading arrangements.  As a country, our successive complacent governments have failed to take the necessary steps to insure the economy against this foreseeable peril.  At this point, if there is no deal with Canada in the next month or so, might the agreement with Mexico sail through Congress before the mid terms, removing risk the Democrats might scuttle it? Good time to be a lobbyist in DC, I suppose.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Aug 2018)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Canada's lumbers industry has gone from a 80% reliance on the US market in the 90's to 50% currently. If we can get a NG pipe to the coast, we can significantly cut the amount of NG flowing to the US as well. The biggest current danger for Canada is the auto sector, which Canada may take a significant hit on.



Luckily, the difficulties we've had over the Softwood Lumber Agreement with the US over the past years, has forced us to look elsewhere for markets.... successfully.

It's time we put on our 'big boy pants' and moved out of Mom's basement with respect to the rest of our economy too.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Aug 2018)

Just a clarification, the FTA does not "revert" in the event that NAFTA terminates unless the US Congress votes on that.  Nothing in either NAFTA or the FTA provides for reversion (article 2106 of the 1988 FTA provides for termination, not suspension but this is exactly what the US did anyway. Canada did nothing similar.)    There is some discussion of this in this link: https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/if-nafta-dies-old-canada-u-s-fta-would-live-on-right-not-so-fast-canada

"The American suspension is laid out in Section 107 of the law implementing NAFTA in that country in 1994. The earlier deal negotiated by Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan was to be suspended, and, according to the law, it would remain suspended until such time as that suspension might be “terminated.”

It doesn’t define how you “terminate” a suspension. But a trade consultant who two decades ago advised Canada’s parliamentary committee on NAFTA implementation said it obviously requires someone to do something.

“It’s been suspended. Somebody has to un-suspend it,” Peter Clark said.

Also, in it's brilliance, our own Parliament repealed large sections of the FTA Implementation.

What is interesting in the current NAFTA agreement is this provision:

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties. 

Unless Canada and Mexico have already provided written notice to each other, both countries would remain parties to this particular NAFTA agreement. It could be (and is likely) that if there really is a bilateral agreement forthcoming between Mexico and the USA, Mexico may be required to provide written notice to Canada that it is also withdrawing from the 1994 NAFTA (agreement).


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Aug 2018)

> LILLEY: Trudeau Liberals botched NAFTA negotiations
> 
> Justin Trudeau could have been a contender.
> 
> Now he has Canada sitting on the outside as the United States and Mexico finalize an agreement in principle on what used to be called NAFTA.



https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-liberals-botched-nafta-negotiations?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1535456269




Possible that Trudeau is going to campaign on opposing all things Trump related to get election points?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Aug 2018)

One has to start wondering if he truly botched it or did he do it on purpose?


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Aug 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just a clarification, the FTA does not "revert" in the event that NAFTA terminates unless the US Congress votes on that.  Nothing in either NAFTA or the FTA provides for reversion (article 2106 of the 1988 FTA provides for termination, not suspension but this is exactly what the US did anyway. Canada did nothing similar.)    There is some discussion of this in this link: https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/if-nafta-dies-old-canada-u-s-fta-would-live-on-right-not-so-fast-canada
> 
> "The American suspension is laid out in Section 107 of the law implementing NAFTA in that country in 1994. The earlier deal negotiated by Brian Mulroney and Ronald Reagan was to be suspended, and, according to the law, it would remain suspended until such time as that suspension might be “terminated.”
> 
> ...



But if one of the parties is the largest economy in the world, by a wide margin, it can do whatever it wants without fear of repercussions.


----------



## Remius (28 Aug 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-liberals-botched-nafta-negotiations?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1535456269
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes quite likely. 

I'll leave this here  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-mexico-trade-agreement-is-hardly-a-done-deal/

I note that Mr. Lilley states that there is a sunset clause.  Sort of true/untrue.

lots of hurdles still for Mr. Trump to claim victory.


----------



## daftandbarmy (28 Aug 2018)

A good summary of the issues, IMHO:


Trudeau Has NAFTA Wiggle Room but Will Resist on One Big Issue

By Bloomberg

August 28, 2018 Updated: August 28, 2018  
    

The rush is on for Canada to get a NAFTA deal, though a key stumbling block remains.

As analysts began parsing summaries of a partial U.S.-Mexico deal announced Aug. 27, most details didn’t jump out as deal-breakers for the other partner in the 24-year-old continental trade pact. The problems instead lie in a series of NAFTA fights always seen as squarely between Canada and the U.S., chief among them the pact’s dispute resolution systems.

“It seems like a set of things that are very easy for Canada to come in on,” Brett House, deputy chief economist at Bank of Nova Scotia, said in an interview about what the U.S. and Mexico agreed to. “We’re really just back to where we always were.”

Markets appear unconcerned, with Canadian auto-parts makers Linamar Corp. and Magna International Inc. extending gains on Aug. 28—signaling a bet Canada will make the cut on a final deal and that the Mexico problems were the biggest ones that needed fixing. “I am not concerned right now for Canada’s position,” Bruce Heyman, a U.S. ambassador to Canada under Barack Obama, told BNN Bloomberg television.

But the clock is ticking on the North American Free Trade Agreement. Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland arrived in Washington for talks Aug. 28, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer wants to notify Congress of a deal by Aug. 31. It would be a lot easier to do so with Canada since U.S. lawmakers might fight the Trump administration if it tries to push ahead with only Mexico.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/trudeau-has-nafta-wiggle-room-but-will-resist-on-one-big-issue_2635261.html


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Aug 2018)

And an interesting Opinion piece from the Wapo:



> It’s not a deal, it’s not that big, and it’s not replacing NAFTA
> 
> By Jennifer Rubin
> Opinion writer
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (29 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> lots of hurdles still for Mr. Trump to claim victory.


When has actual success been required for a Trump claim of 'victory'?  

As merely one of many examples:  


> @realDonaldTrump
> ….everybody can now feel much safer than the day I took office. There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.


This self-congratulatory, and equally premature trade pronouncement is no different.


OK, the difference lay in the responses here;  the nuclear issue evoked bleating about a Nobel Peace Prize, whereas with trade, somehow Trudeau has magically transformed from one of the most inept politicians ever into some cunning puppet-master who orchestrated all of this for electoral gain.
      :stars:


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Aug 2018)

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/08/29/poll-canadas-confidence-in-trudeau-governments-handling-of-nafta-negotiations-collapses/

*POLL: Canada’s Confidence In Trudeau Government’s Handling Of NAFTA Negotiations COLLAPSES* - 29 Aug 18

Angus Reid survey shows just 17% of Canadians are “very confident” with the Trudeau government’s ability to represent Canada in trade negotiations.

As the U.S. and Mexico reach a deal on NAFTA without Canada, and after weeks of us being on the outside looking in, a new Angus Reid poll shows that Canadians’ confidence in the Trudeau government’s handling of the trade negotiations has collapsed. In June of 2018, 27% of Canadians said they were “very confident” in the government to handle the negotiations. 43% said they were “moderately confident.” 22% were “not that confident,” and 8% were “not at all confident.”

But in the last month, those numbers have changed dramatically. Now, just 17% say they are “very confident,” 34% say they are “moderately confident.” 26% are “not that confident,” and the number of people “not at all confident” has surged to 22%. Considering that “moderately confident” is a pretty weak statement, when you add that to those who aren’t confident or are not at all confident, a full 82% lack full confidence in the Trudeau government.

And these numbers are no surprise. For a long time, the Trudeau government and the media were selling the same message: Everything’s going great, Canada has tons of leverage, and we’re going to get a great deal. But now, that fiction can’t be maintained. Even much of the establishment media has been reporting on what is obvious to us all: Trudeau and Freeland got totally outplayed by Mexico, their virtue-signalling and lecturing backfired horribly, our leverage is gone, and our economy faces serious risk. Canadians can see that Trudeau and Freeland don’t have what it takes to represent our country, and the collapse in confidence was an inevitable result of that observation.


Related:1. It turns out that Donald Trump wanted to speak with Justin Trudeau BEFORE he made his announcement on the trade deal between the U.S. and Mexico. But Trudeau didn’t take the call.
             2. Freeland was late for the meeting yesterday.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (30 Aug 2018)

For those looking for a slightly less hysterical view of the negotiations and Canada's relative position, I offer this analysis:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/30/friday-isnt-real-deadline-nafta/?utm_term=.685ad79dc16d


> Friday isn’t the real deadline for ‘NAFTA 2.0’
> Trump’s push to get a deal with Canada by Friday is a negotiating tactic and attempt to move something before the new Mexican president takes office.
> 
> August 30 at 10:18 AM
> ...



So it appears that this side deal with Mexico is about American insider baseball more than it is about the larger trade discussion.  As aggravating as it may be for some, it is safe to assume that our own government is aware of all of this, and indeed has been all along.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Aug 2018)

> López Obrador has had representatives at the U.S.-Mexico trade talks, but *Trump doesn’t want to risk the new Mexican administration balking at a deal his team brokered with the old one.*



Tough when the deal-breaking shoe is on the other foot....


----------



## Remius (30 Aug 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> For those looking for a slightly less hysterical view of the negotiations and Canada's relative position, I offer this analysis:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/08/30/friday-isnt-real-deadline-nafta/?utm_term=.685ad79dc16d
> So it appears that this side deal with Mexico is about American insider baseball more than it is about the larger trade discussion.  As aggravating as it may be for some, it is safe to assume that our own government is aware of all of this, and indeed has been all along.




Of course they’ve been aware of all of this.  But there are some people so enamoured with Trump diplomacy that they are salivating at the fantasy of having Trudeau fail and hope we get a bad deal that they refuse to even consider the points in the article you posted.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Aug 2018)

Hopefully we get no deal.....I think we can do quite well without NAFTA if we put our big boy/girl pants on.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2018)

It would be a shame for Wisconsinites if Trump's 25% tariffs on Canadian autos bought the Dairy State a jack in tariffs from 300% to 1000%...ouch!  Holy focused retaliatory tariffs, Batman!  

#Neversaynever

Regards
G2G


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2018)

Trump was in Indiana tonight and during the rally he mentioned the trade deal with Mexico and that Canada was in talks at the White House. He said that he likes Canada but the tariff on dairy brought into Canada would see a tariff on cars brought into the US. Either Canada backs down or auto workers will pay the price. Stay tuned for a trade deal announcement.


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Aug 2018)

The irony is that the US physically exports twice as much dairy product to Canada as Canada does in return, so it’s not like the 300% really stops them.  If the US federal government is subsidizing 75% of the American dairy production, then Canada’s 300% tariff just normalizes the price of the significantly underpriced dairy that America attempts to dump into the Canadian market.  I wouldn’t be surprised to see Canada tie a reciprocal reduction in US softwood lumber tariffs to...you know...comply with WTO findings that the US’ tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber are excessive. 

If there is an agreement, it will be conditional, and not a walk in the park for Trump. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## FJAG (31 Aug 2018)

Good article on why one shouldn't mess with the auto trade sector without really studying the subject.



> Is there even such a thing as a 'Made in America' vehicle anymore?
> 
> Peter Armstrong · CBC News · Posted: Aug 31, 2018 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 23 minutes ago
> 
> ...



Read the full article here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/armstrong-autos-tariffs-toyota-rav4-1.4805236

 :cheers:


----------



## AlexanderM (31 Aug 2018)

Bombshell release by The Toronto Star, may mean no NAFTA deal.

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

Although he seems to be trying to say otherwise, I think he's now more desperate than ever to make a deal with Canada. Just look at the newest approval rating survey.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/donald-trump-approval-rating-sinks-to-lowest-of-his-presidency


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Although he seems to be trying to say otherwise, I think he's now more desperate than ever to make a deal with Canada. Just look at the newest approval rating survey.
> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/31/donald-trump-approval-rating-sinks-to-lowest-of-his-presidency



I'm sure cancelling the raise for federal workers, which wasn't even a raise anyways but a cost of living increase, is going to hurt these numbers even more.   I thought the economy was doing great though?  I guess when you give a trillion dollar tax break to the wealthiest you have no room for the peasants.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2018)

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Bombshell release by The Toronto Star, may mean no NAFTA deal.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html




What? The trump administration not negotiating in good faith?  Not much of a bombshell.  I doubt an agreement will be in place today with that revelation confirmed.


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Bombshell release by The Toronto Star, may mean no NAFTA deal.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/08/31/bombshell-leak-to-toronto-star-upends-nafta-talks-in-secret-so-insulting-remarks-trump-says-he-isnt-compromising-at-all-with-canada.html



Well this came out about 25 minutes ago. It's going to be pretty awkward for Trump now...
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-trump-compromise-trudeau-1.4806240


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Aug 2018)

BloomBerg must be going ballistic with TorStar,  how can anyone trust a journalist to keep things off the record anymore? :rofl:  T


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> What? The trump administration not negotiating in good faith?  Not much of a bombshell.  I doubt an agreement will be in place today with that revelation confirmed.



It just goes to show you how ridicules those that used this to score cheap political points are.   Why would you appease a President with a low approval rating that a majority of Canadians blame for this mess.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2018)

Trump has very high approval ratings and he wants a deal with Canada. I think Trudeau is under pressure to get a deal done so it will be interesting to watch over our long weekend.


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Aug 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump has very high approval ratings and he wants a deal with Canada. I think Trudeau is under pressure to get a deal done so it will be interesting to watch over our long weekend.



Amongst Trump supporters, sure. Is 36% "very high" :dunno:

What about the 53% of Americans who strongly disapprove of Trump's performance in the White House?   ???

#truthisnotthetruth

Regards
G2G


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump has very high approval ratings and he wants a deal with Canada. I think Trudeau is under pressure to get a deal done so it will be interesting to watch over our long weekend.



Yeah there is truth in this at all.   Trump continues to slide in the polls.  I'd actually like some proof of these high approval ratings for once.  Stabbing federal employees in the back, while cutting taxes at the same time to corporations,  is going to hurt him even more.  

Trudeau has no pressure to get a deal done.  Trump is just a bully who thinks he can push everyone around.   The Friday deadline has nothing to do with Canada but has everything to do with Mexico's outbound president and Trump shitting his pants over the mid-terms. It's an artificial deadline more important to Trump than Canada.


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump has very high approval ratings and he wants a deal with Canada. I think Trudeau is under pressure to get a deal done so it will be interesting to watch over our long weekend.


Even Fox news which is pro Trump has admitted than in June surveys, Trump had an approval rating of 45% ( this was in June, right now his approval rating is at the lowest point recorded, as I wrote before).  I'll put a link to prove that it's a fact, not an opinion.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/07/fox-news-poll-record-approval-trump-on-economy-optimism-on-n-korea.html


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Even Fox news which is pro Trump has admitted than in June surveys, Trump had an approval rating of 45% ( this was in June, right now his approval rating is at the lowest point recorded, as I wrote before).  I'll put a link to prove that it's a fact, not an opinion.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/07/fox-news-poll-record-approval-trump-on-economy-optimism-on-n-korea.html



Which should be even lower now considering the great, super, excellent North Korean talks turned into a complete bust.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2018)

Polling democrats keep the popularity numbers down. Candidates that seem to win do so after getting his endorsement.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-among-republicans-trump-more-popular-1487793074-htmlstory.html


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

Your source is from February 2017.


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

Seems like the Trump threats didn't make us rush into a deal like he expected us too . NAFTA negotiations have concluded this week ( with no deal made ) and will resume again this weekend.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-trump-compromise-trudeau-1.4806240

P.S. Thanks tomahawk. The CTV source says next week but CBC says this weekend.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2018)

Actually talks were extended into the weekend.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Aug 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> Even Fox news which is pro Trump has admitted than in June surveys, Trump had an approval rating of 45% ( this was in June, right now his approval rating is at the lowest point recorded, as I wrote before).  I'll put a link to prove that it's a fact, not an opinion.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/07/fox-news-poll-record-approval-trump-on-economy-optimism-on-n-korea.html



Mid term drop? Obama had the same thing. Obama's 2011 year is the same as 2018 for Trump, looks pretty close.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/205284/obama-job-approval-rate-by-the-american-public/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/666113/approval-rate-of-donald-trump-for-the-presidential-job/


----------



## TheHead (31 Aug 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Mid term drop? Obama had the same thing. Obama's 2011 year is the same as 2018 for Trump, looks pretty close.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/205284/obama-job-approval-rate-by-the-american-public/
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/666113/approval-rate-of-donald-trump-for-the-presidential-job/



Obama was also dealing with almost a 10% unemployment rate because of the recession.   The US has a 3.9% unemployment rate.  If people don't approve of you with those numbers you're doing something wrong.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2018)

IF the base turns out to vote they may not lose many seats. In his rally last night in Indiana he pained the mid term election as vital to avoid Democrats and their impeachment agenda. Of course leaders face trials like Trudeau according to Bloomberg. I don't know how accurate it is ? I am ready to be educated. 8)

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/08/31/nafta-crunch-caps-a-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-for-trudeau#gs.PTRebfs


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Aug 2018)

TheHead said:
			
		

> Obama was also dealing with almost a 10% unemployment rate because of the recession.   The US has a 3.9% unemployment rate.  If people don't approve of you with those numbers you're doing something wrong.



Oh, I forgot people only disliked Obama because there was a recession.  :facepalm:


----------



## mariomike (31 Aug 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Oh, I forgot people only disliked Obama because there was a recession.  :facepalm:



I thought it was because he once wore a tan suit. 

And another time put Dijon mustard on a hotdog.  

That's a Double face-palm.


----------



## Remius (31 Aug 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> IF the base turns out to vote they may not lose many seats. In his rally last night in Indiana he pained the mid term election as vital to avoid Democrats and their impeachment agenda. Of course leaders face trials like Trudeau according to Bloomberg. I don't know how accurate it is ? I am ready to be educated. 8)
> 
> https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/2018/08/31/nafta-crunch-caps-a-horrible-no-good-very-bad-week-for-trudeau#gs.PTRebfs



The assessment is pretty spot on.  It has been a bad week for Trudeau.  He has a mess with the pipeline and everyone’s is abandoning the national climate plan.  But he has a few things going for him that Trump does not.  The media is friendly-ish with him. The opposition is divided and barely competent.  The economy is doing well for now and with Trump’s off the record comment, Trudeau’s government so far come off as the honest player in the NAFTA talks, at least to Canadians so that plays well here and shows he isn’t willing to cave.


----------



## Ashkan08 (31 Aug 2018)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> BloomBerg must be going ballistic with TorStar,  *how can anyone trust a journalist to keep things off the record anymore*? :rofl:  T



For some reason, Trump seems to think you can. Quote from Trump's twitter, " Wow, I made OFF THE RECORD COMMENTS to Bloomberg concerning Canada, and this powerful understanding was BLATANTLY VIOLATED. Oh well, just more dishonest reporting. I am used to it. At least Canada knows where I stand!".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2018)

Arguing about which poll is right. Or whose numbers are up or down as determined by someone asking specified people to agree with what he's invented.  :rofl:


----------



## QV (1 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> For some reason, Trump seems to think you can. Quote from Trump's twitter, " Wow, I made OFF THE RECORD COMMENTS to Bloomberg concerning Canada, and this powerful understanding was BLATANTLY VIOLATED. Oh well, just more dishonest reporting. I am used to it. At least Canada knows where I stand!".



Or, Trump knew and expected it to be leaked, given what we know of Trump’s trust and opinions of the MSM. Before anyone says “Nah, he’s just dumb.”, everything Trump has accomplished and has become are not the results of being dumb.  He’s a billionaire and the current elected president of the most powerful country in the history of human civilization.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Sep 2018)

*Rex Murphy: How much more can Canadians ask Alberta to take?* – National Post  31 Aug 18
_Those who think that 'environmental review' is about reviewing the environment have lost the plot_

If cars and trains and planes could run on green sanctimony, in the age of Justin Trudeau, Canada would be Kuwait. But of course they don’t. And in Save the Auto Pact week, which is how I would characterize Chrystia Freeland’s frantic return from Europe and Ukraine to Washington, to answer Mr. Trump’s summons and catch up with her Mexican “partners,” who would have guessed that a federal court would shoot a thunderbolt at the industry that allows all those cars to do what cars do in the first place?

Poor battered Fort McMurray — what’s left for them after fire, flood, world prices and a court’s curt quash? A plague of frogs and locusts and perhaps an eclipse of the sun, just for variety.

This careless government has careened from one bungle and self-manufactured crisis to another. From India, to Saudi Arabia, to Washington this week, it’s either catch-up, incompetence or peacock risibility. And as Ms. Freeland and her team pulled sophomore “all-nighters” to save free trade and appease the angry god in the White House, dear Alberta learned there was no way they will be able to trade their oil whatever way NAFTA goes.

For the pipeline, the pipeline we had to buy because Canadians didn’t support it correctly in the first place, is now on hold, which is Liberalese for “you will not see this in your lifetime.” Finance Minister Bill Morneau extended the novel explanation that the decision was a good thing, which raised questions on just which asteroid he was reporting from. Catherine McKenna, minister of climate change, still on the straw crusade, had less or nothing to say, apart from a dart at Doug Ford — which is her latest Twitter hobby — even as a much disappointed Rachel Notley (finally) in principle abandoned co-operation with federal carbon plans.

Ms. Freeland may or may not save the Canadian bacon in Washington — it’s unclear as I write. But the mess that has fallen on Canadian politics, and provincial relations, emphatically those with Alberta, though other provinces are closely involved, as a result of the guillotining of the Trans Mountain pipeline, will not swiftly or easily be repaired. It is a massive fail. The strains and contests it will inspire within this happy Confederation will be compelling as any distempers with deal-maker Trump.

How was it then, that Alberta got shafted once again? And how many of the “slings and arrows of outrageous” greenism can or will Alberta take?

To begin at the beginning, you cannot placate the implacable. The dynamic between those who want an oil and gas industry, and the groups ideologically possessed to oppose one, is that the latter have one position and one position only: to end oil and gas in Canada. Whenever greens or their myriad fronts offer a mid-point position, a compromise, it is merely mouth-work, a moving of the lips for tactical reasons or spurious manoeuvre.

Those who harbour (or once did — Rachel Notley) the idea that there is a middle ground with green and global warming totalism, their dead-ender commitment to world-scale, Paris-stamped, UN-mustered global greenism — have simply not been watching or listening. Green environmentalism is fundamentalist. The government in Ottawa, both by disposition and ideologically, is far more to the green side of the world than it is or ever will be to its own and Alberta’s oil and gas industry. Paris before Calgary, “as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.”

From the first day in office, to the present minute, when has there been just one full speech in any national or international forum when Mr. Trudeau, with that great dramatic gravity of his, made the real case for Canada’s oil and gas? Where have been the delegations led by him to showcase the Fort McMurray oil sands, to highlight the advanced technology, praise the engineering, sit down with the workers, meet the municipal leaders? In all the causes he really supports, he leads the parade and adds the precious glitter of his presence.

The consequence of all this nothing — nothing is a force — is that the demonstrations and protests and international gang-ups on Fort McMurray and the oilsands have been unanswered. That an atmosphere has been produced in which the case for Alberta has to be made, every time afresh, and from an established negative baseline. The “antis” have had the stage unopposed, indeed given tacit sanction, the negatives allowed to snowball. Indigenous opposition blares in every press report. Indigenous support an afterthought and a whisper.

These are the atmospherics in which decisions are made: a structured and long-nourished hostility toward the idea of oil and gas energy; an unexamined moral supremacy afforded opposition to energy projects; an eagerness to display concert with those “fighting” for Nature and all her handiworks; an embedded predisposing to overlook the “mundane” concern for jobs and those who haven’t got them; a total indisposition to inquire into either the funding or motivation of organizations whose raison d’etre is protest and obstruction coupled with an overwhelming disposition to see only greed and rapacity on the industry side. This in the mindset, the mentality, in which current progressive thought is fixed, and it is in the ascendant. It is, most fatally, the mindset of the Trudeau government, whose concern for its environmentalist credentials and its thirst for the admiration of global progressive voices is its deepest political emotion.

What chance has a hinterland town like Fort McMurray against this array? Those who think that “environmental review” is about reviewing the environment have lost the plot. In our new green world the purpose of environmental review is to extend the time and space for opposition to invent new objections, and invite fresh protests. The process, as it is lovingly called, is always more important than the project. The thing reviewed is always less significant than the review itself.

The infatuation with process and the counterfeit search for social licence — the theatre of moralist environmentalism — will always trump the plain common sense of the demands of a purposeful national economy. It will always give glancing afterthought to the common experience of people working or looking to do so, to projects that vitalize communities, and keep alive the spirit of individual and collective enterprise that has always attended “doing an honest day’s work for an honest dollar.”

Thus this week’s court decision was neither singular nor defining. It was just one more stammer in a long pattern of stammering, the latest rock on the road, one fortified by the mentality that governs the long-prevalent bias against this one industry, the dismissal of “Albertan” concerns as always secondary to more “principled” ones, and just another thread in an extremely well-woven tapestry.

Underwriting this suffocating octopus of intervention and delay is the famous axiom uttered by a yet-to-be prime minister: “Governments can grant permits; only communities can grant permission.” That line, like so many other of his mini-thoughts on complex issues, has brought a harvest of faction, and offers a straight line to the latest bad news for Alberta this week.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (1 Sep 2018)

A great article - and sadly right on the money.


----------



## Ashkan08 (1 Sep 2018)

Trump tells Congress not to get involved with the Canada-U.S trade negotiations. Seems like he's realised that most people want Canada in this deal and doesn't want them to say it/do something about it.

https://vancouversun.com/news/canada/trump-warns-congress-not-to-interfere-with-nafta-negotiations/wcm/e725fb85-fb5c-46a4-b084-a371882c3ac6

I don't think he understands that congress can refuse to accept an agreement without Canada.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *Rex Murphy: How much more can Canadians ask Alberta to take?* – National Post  31 Aug 18
> _Those who think that 'environmental review' is about reviewing the environment have lost the plot_



We could _ask_ them to introduce a Provincial Sales Tax, like the rest of the grown ups, and stop relying on 'pay day loans' from the oil industry to get by all the time, you know, like other pampered, oil rich, 'at least 20 cents a litre less than the neighbours' oligarchies


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We could _ask_ them to introduce a Provincial Sales Tax, like the rest of the grown ups, and stop relying on 'pay day loans' from the oil industry to get by all the time, you know, like other pampered, oil rich, 'at least 20 cents a litre less than the neighbours' oligarchies



IIRC the NDP introduced a provincial sales tax just after coming to power.


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> We could _ask_ them to introduce a Provincial Sales Tax, like the rest of the grown ups, and stop relying on 'pay day loans' from the oil industry to get by all the time, you know, like other pampered, oil rich, 'at least 20 cents a litre less than the neighbours' oligarchies



This is a joke right? Even with Alberta's recent overspending for 3 years or so, after falling upon on hard economic times, all the "grown ups" are swimming in far more debt than Alberta due to their decades of overspending... despite Alberta making mandatory donations to them. The last place Alberta should be looking for advice from on how to manage it's finances is any one of the governments in this country, some of whom have done everything the can to stop Alberta's interests regardless of the fact that they would also benefit from it.

The smug love of seeing Alberta have a hard day or two from the rest of Canada is doing a great deal to further the sentiment in Alberta than the rest of Canada can get bent.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Sep 2018)

If taxes were the answer, Quebec would be booming and paying the rest of the provinces equalization with their 50% income tax rates. Instead, they have those huge income taxes, a PST, and are the biggest drain on equalization.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Sep 2018)

50% briefs well, but doesn't withstand 2 minutes of google....

From the Revenu Quebec website:

https://www.revenuquebec.ca/en/citizens/your-situation/new-residents/the-quebec-taxation-system/income-tax-rates/



> INCOME TAX RATES
> Tax break
> For the 2017 taxation year onward, the income tax rate for individuals has been dropped from 16% to 15% for the first bracket of taxable income. You will be taxed at this new lower rate when you file your income tax return for 2017.
> 
> ...



And for comparison with other provinces, the Federal website:

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/frequently-asked-questions-individuals/canadian-income-tax-rates-individuals-current-previous-years.html#provincial



> Provincial and territorial tax rates (combined chart)
> Provinces and territories	                            Rates
> Newfoundland and Labrador
> 8.7% on the first $36,926 of taxable income, +
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Sep 2018)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> 50% briefs well, but doesn't withstand 2 minutes of google....



So glad you're here to fact check the thread into rabbit holes.

Quebec has the highest tax rates in Canada, and the marginal tax rate for someone over $100,000 when combined with Federal taxes is over 50%. They also have one of the highest provincial sales tax rates in the country. So to get back on topic, if taxes were the answer, Quebec wouldn't need equalization.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Sep 2018)

I know it's the Edmonton Sun, but this 'PST' subject was top of mind last Spring around the Alberta budget time...


https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-alberta-sales-tax-is-politically-risky-but-its-good-public-policy


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know it's the Edmonton Sun, but this 'PST' subject was top of mind last Spring around the Alberta budget time...
> 
> 
> https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-alberta-sales-tax-is-politically-risky-but-its-good-public-policy



I don't even need to read the article because I am 100% a proponent of a value-added tax. It is the most efficient tax out there besides a lump-sum tax. I wish we'd increase GST federally and reduce income tax by the equal amount of revenue because a value-added tax is far more efficient. There are no good taxes but it is certainly less evil than most. So the article is just confirmation bias for me, certainly not a counterargument.

However, that does not in any way change the ridiculousness and inaccuracy of your comment re: the "grown ups" who clearly are in no position to be looking down their noses at Alberta.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Sep 2018)

Doesn't the UK use a VAT in addition to an income tax ?


----------



## ballz (2 Sep 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Doesn't the UK use a VAT in addition to an income tax ?



Yes, VAT is very common in the EU. I actually meant to say a consumption tax, not value-added tax (both VAT and Sales Tax are a type of consumption tax). Mea culpa. Consumption taxes in general are far more efficient than income taxes, both because of administering them and also because they don't affect decision-making outcomes as much as income taxes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2018)

But: politically, income tax rates are much easier to adjust than consumption tax rates.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Sep 2018)

Adjusting income tax rates can manipulated to give the appearance of helping the poor while punishing the rich.


----------



## garb811 (4 Sep 2018)

I split the stuff that was related to defence etc and merged it into the US vs Canada thread in the Global Politics sub-forum.

Please keep this thread to generally trade war related issues.

*- Milnet.ca staff*


----------



## NavyTech (4 Sep 2018)

For those interested in supporting Canada for this trade war (should be everyone here).  A resource for finding made in Canada companies at: https://www.madeinmooseland.ca .  It looks like it's made be a fellow sailor.  Cheers!


----------



## Ashkan08 (7 Sep 2018)

https://globalnews.ca/news/4434583/trump-auto-tariffs-ruination-canada/
Although the auto tariffs would be very damaging to the Canadian economy, someone should tell him that it won't "ruin" Canada as he thinks it will.


----------



## Spencer100 (7 Sep 2018)

Trump is right. It would destroy the manufacturing economy in Canada.   Let's go over the list. Volvo bus, Paccar in Quebec. Ford Oakville Ford Windsor engine plants, GM Oshawa. CAMI, St Catharines powertrain Honda Alliston Toyota 2 plants.  FCA Windsor Brampton and Etobicoke  start than is more than seventeen OEM plants.  Now add the hundreds of JIT I plants feeding them and now add the hundreds of other faculties making parts for other NA locations.  Now you are talking hundreds of thousand of jobs. Then add the secondary job in the towns. What are we at now a million.  It will destroy the Canadian economy


----------



## QV (7 Sep 2018)

For every lost job how many people would that affect?  Two to three on average?  Household average, not other industry or services.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Sep 2018)

People with good steady jobs, have more discretionary spending power, that translates into revenue for non related jobs, like golf stores, cooffee shops, clothing stores, restaurants. We used to go my favorite restaurant twice a month, but then cutback to once. The owner noticed this and said "Everyone is doing the same, so for you it's one meal missed, for me it's 500"


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2018)

>For every lost job how many people would that affect?  Two to three on average?  Household average, not other industry or services.

Depends on the community - size, and number of core primary employers*.  Loss of one primary employer can sometimes be devastating.

*The ones at the bottom of the (now) inverted pyramid.  Historically, primary employers were the broad base of a conventional pyramid (agriculture, resource extraction, manufacturing) with a smaller secondary (common suppliers and services) tier and a much smaller tertiary tier (luxuries, culture, indulgences, specialized professions, etc) on top.  Now, the secondary and tertiary tiers are typically much broader.  When a primary employer goes, the cascading effects (upward) can be much more severe, particularly in the top tier.  Loss of a primary employer in Vancouver is probably not a big deal.  Loss of one of the (three) primary employers in Kamloops would probably mean a severe local recession.

A guess: you could gauge the impact of loss of a major primary employer by measuring the number of high-end cafes and niche restaurants which fail.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2018)

Many people are still forgetting to look at the total environment this is playing out in.

President Trump is putting economic pressure on China through tariffs, which hurts China since they export a lot more to the US than the US exports to China (and China is primarily an export driven economy). Being able to sell less means less money for the Chinese, much like expanded US oil production means less money for Iran, Russia etc.

US trade to Canada is @ 1% of the US GDP, which might make people wonder why Canada is being beaten by a particularly large stick. The true answer is the Administration is closing doors through which China might slip exports into the US free of tariffs. Canada is also likely heavily compromised by the Chinese, politically and economically, and slamming the door is a wake up call to the Canadian establishment to choose carefully who they really want to get in bed with.

Viewed this way, not only do American actions make sense, but it also presages a long and difficult time ahead for Canada should we choose to go with the Chinese over the neighbouring Americans. Closed doors might be very difficult to open again.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Sep 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ...US trade to Canada is @ 1% of the US GDP, which might make people wonder why Canada is being beaten by a particularly large stick. The true answer is the Administration is closing doors through which China might slip exports into the US free of tariffs. Canada is also likely heavily compromised by the Chinese, politically and economically, and slamming the door is a wake up call to the Canadian establishment to choose carefully who they really want to get in bed with...



The highest receiver in the World of US goods and services - within a hair of equalling all of US export to the E.U. combined.  Canada is also the most balanced of any trading partner with the US...$282B to $299B.

...and trade to Mexico is 0.86% of the US GDP, and to China is 0.46% of the US GDP, and the % of US GDP just keeps getting smaller from there.

Without trying to use a super small number without context (1% US GDP) to understate an impact, please explain how hobbling your biggest export target market will have barely any repercussions on your own economy?

???

Regards
G2G


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Sep 2018)

Right wing news feed. If interested watch.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/11/oh-my-canadian-foreign-minister-left-nafta-negotiations-to-attend-president-trump-is-a-tyrant-conference/



> *Oh My – Canadian Foreign Minister Left NAFTA Negotiations To Attend “President Trump is a Tyrant” Conference…*
> Posted on September 11, 2018	by sundance
> 
> Jumpin’ ju-ju bones.  Hat Tip to Ezra Levant on Twitter – This is going to go down in the history books of bad diplomacy.  You have to watch the first 2 minutes of this video.  Canadian Foreign Minister took leave during the middle of critically important trade negotiations with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to attend a Women in the World conference in Toronto.
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Sep 2018)

What is wrong with these peole. It's not what good for Canada; it's what good for the Liberals.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-liberals-eye-potential-electoral-gains-from-taking-on-the-tyrant-trump

*John Ivison: Liberals eye potential electoral gains from 'taking on the tyrant' Trump* - 12 Sep 18
_Reasonable people can debate Trump’s foibles and shortcomings, particularly with regard to immigration and a free press, but Bashar al-Assad he is not _

Has Chrystia Freeland given up hope of a renegotiated NAFTA deal and resolved instead to use opposition to Donald Trump in Canada to ramp up domestic support for the Liberals ahead of next year’s general election? How else to explain her appearance at Monday’s Women in the World summit in Toronto, on a panel entitled Taking on the Tyrant? Freeland continues to pay lip-service to the prospect of a deal — that it can be done, with good will and flexibility on all sides.

But how much good will is the notoriously ill-willed Trump likely to extend once he is informed that Canada’s global affairs minister sat on a stage while a video played comparing him to a rogue’s gallery of autocrats including Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad? All these leaders, claimed the video that opened the panel, use “fear, racism, corruption, anti-immigrant sentiment and misinformation to crack down on a free press, rule of law and political freedom to undermine democracy and consolidate power.” Reasonable people can debate Trump’s foibles and shortcomings, particularly with regard to immigration and a free press, but Bashar al-Assad he is not.

For Freeland to tacitly endorse the comparison, the day before she sat across the table from Trump’s trade representative negotiating a deal crucial to this country’s national interest, was grossly irresponsible. Unless, of course, the Trudeau government has already concluded that Trump’s demands on access to Canada’s dairy industry, the dispute-resolution system and cultural exemptions on media ownership and content are so unacceptable they’d be better off politically walking away without a deal and campaigning in the next election on having stood up to Trump.

That certainly seemed to be the tenor of Justin Trudeau’s remarks ahead of the Liberal caucus retreat in Saskatoon Wednesday, where he congratulated Freeland for “standing up for Canadian workers and defending our interests.” Canada would not sign an agreement that is “not to our advantage,” he said in French. “It would be better not to sign any agreement in such a case.” Better off for the Liberal Party perhaps — but for the Canadian economy? Hardly. There is a misplaced sense of confidence on the Canadian side that it is Trump who is in trouble — that if a deal with Canada can’t be struck, the president will be left with a U.S.-Mexico agreement that Congress won’t approve.

But beyond that, there is a worrying evangelistic tone to Liberal rhetoric these days that suggests they might be best served presenting themselves to Canadians as the light of the world, a breakwater against a global tide of populism. It’s not cynical. Many senior Liberals truly believe they have been ordained to fight for Canada at a pivotal moment in its history — the triumph of romanticism over realpolitik. During the Taking on the Tyrant panel Freeland recounted that Trudeau tells his cabinet (so much for confidences) that “Canada didn’t happen by accident, and it won’t continue without intentional effort.”

This sense of manifest destiny will endure, even if a NAFTA deal is struck. But it would be so much more compelling to campaign against the threat to the multilateral rules-based order posed by Trump than to have to exaggerate the menace of Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, widely considered as harmless as a garter snake. This is not to suggest that if a deal is within reach Canada will reject it; just that the Trudeau government has one eye on next year’s election and will not make concessions that will be politically unpalatable, particularly in Quebec.

Securing a commitment from Trump that he will not in future invoke the Section 232 national security provision used to justify steel and aluminum tariffs might be worth risking a breakdown in talks. But protecting the cosseted dairy industry and insisting the dispute-resolution mechanism remains unchanged are not hills to die on. Trudeau said Canada is prepared to be flexible on dairy — yet we were “flexible” with the Europeans, offering an increased quota of cheese that could enter Canada tariff-free. As CBC reported Wednesday, only one third of that quota has been imported, as processors active in the domestic cheese industry have decided they’d prefer to do without the competition. The Americans won’t be fooled in the same manner. On dispute resolution, Trudeau is in “no surrender” mode. The bi-national panels he is intent on keeping are designed as a check on capricious action by the U.S. Yet Canadians who have sat on those panels, such as trade expert James McIlroy, say the U.S. Department of Commerce routinely ignored their rulings because there is no enforcement mechanism.

If Trudeau and Freeland pass up on a deal in order to protect the dairy industry or to ensure the dispute resolution mechanism remains unchanged, it will be because they have calculated there are electoral gains to be made “taking on the tyrant.”


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Sep 2018)

So how's this NAFTA deal looking?

Did did we win big  on gender equality, indigenous rights and all that?


----------



## Remius (13 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So how's this NAFTA deal looking?
> 
> Did did we win big  on gender equality, indigenous rights and all that?



no clue since none of those seem to be an issue.

But this article from the FP shows that Canada may have some cards to play.

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/who-has-leverage-at-the-nafta-table-it-might-not-just-be-trump


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> no clue since none of those seem to be an issue.



Do you mean not an issue originally brought forward or not something that's being discussed now?

I was under the impression that the items I mentioned were initialy brought forward by us when talks began. Am I incorrect?


----------



## Remius (14 Sep 2018)

No I mean that those things don’t seem to be an issue holding anything up. 

Either because the clause on gender will have no real teeth or that both sides don’t really care  one way or another.  

Not sure why some here are fixated on something more or less irrelevant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> No I mean that those things don’t seem to be an issue holding anything up.
> 
> Either because the clause on gender will have no real teeth or that both sides don’t really care  one way or another.
> 
> Not sure why some here are fixated on something more or less irrelevant.



The "why" is precisely why I mention it Remus.  NAFTA is a pretty big deal, arguably with a lot of lives on the line. 
Why would we open negeoiations with something that has "no real teeth or that both sides don’t really care  one way or another"?  Like some ridiculous 3rd throw away COA.  Something "irrelevant" as you say. 

Why bother in the first place? Because of our own great track record with indigenous rights?    

It's more hollow virtue signalling. Often virtue signalling is pretty harmless but our government does a great job of making it bite us in the ass, hopefully it just slides by this time.


----------



## Remius (14 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The "why" is precisely why I mention it Remus.  NAFTA is a pretty big deal, arguably with a lot of lives on the line.
> Why would we open negeoiations with something that has "no real teeth or that both sides don’t really care  one way or another"?  Like some ridiculous 3rd throw away COA.  Something "irrelevant" as you say.
> 
> Why bother in the first place? Because of our own great track record with indigenous rights?
> ...



Once again, it does not matter one way or another.  Who cares.  it isn't stalling anything nor is it a point of contention nor is it a show stopper at this point. 

There are some circles that want to see Trudeau fail and they want it to be because of some made up BS about it being about gender and indigenous rights because deep down those same circles hate the concept of those things to begin with so want the narrative to go there.

Sunset clause, dispute resolution, supply management and intellectual cultural protections.  Those are the real problems.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Sep 2018)

The Liberals want negotiations to fail. Then Capt Canada can run on standing up to the evil Trump.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Sep 2018)

The Head: read reply 393. Bet you a beer I am correct.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2018)

[quote author=Remius] 
Once again, it does not matter one way or another.  Who cares.[/QUOTE] 

I would imagine if you had dirt floors, no running water or working septic system you might be a little more insulted. 


Maybe you don't care about the virtual signalling and throw away negotiation points for show and maybe I'm the only one that does. Some people are comfortable with hypocrisy, others not so much. 


I think rifleman brings up a great point. 
Lots of political points to be gained by being anti-trump, regardless of the issue. Trudeau might shit the NAFTA bed but it will be a win for the Liberals when they spin it so Trudeau is the heron for opposing the big bad Trump.


----------



## GR66 (14 Sep 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Once again, it does not matter one way or another.  Who cares.  it isn't stalling anything nor is it a point of contention nor is it a show stopper at this point.
> 
> There are some circles that want to see Trudeau fail and they want it to be because of some made up BS about it being about gender and indigenous rights because deep down those same circles hate the concept of those things to begin with so want the narrative to go there.
> 
> Sunset clause, dispute resolution, supply management and intellectual cultural protections.  Those are the real problems.



I know I'm going to hate myself for wading into this, but...

I agree that gender and indigenous rights are not the key issues that were facing NAFTA negotiations when they began.  Everyone know that it would be the meaty issues like the Sunset clause, dispute resolution, supply management and intellectual and cultural protections.

If that's the case then, and Team Canada KNEW that it was going to be a tough fight with a protectionist and confrontational President Trump, then why were our opening proposals on minor issues not proposals related to the real problems?  If we knew what they were going to try and nail us on, then why didn't we try to head them off at the pass by proposing solutions that deflect them from those issues?  

At the very least it looks like our side seriously misread the situation.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Head: read reply 393. Bet you a beer I am correct.



So you'd prefer Canada cowtow Trump, who has proven that he doesn't feel agreements need to be adhered to?


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> So you'd prefer Canada cowtow Trump, who has proven that he doesn't feel agreements need to be adhered to?



Like our prime minister's 40 some broken campaign promises? Or are those not agreements. 

Trudeau's campaign played big on gender equality and indigenous rights.
Once again we see how important those truly are to our government when push comes to shove.


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Sep 2018)

GR66 said:
			
		

> At the very least it looks like our side seriously misread the situation.



100%, but you can't fault them for trying. They feel those things are the reasons why they were elected, and that they have place front and centre in a trade agreement. For some reason they feel it is what differentiates Libs from Cons, and so it serves a strong political purpose. 

I was hoping that with NAFTA (2) that we could help the US with some of its Mexican migrant problem by taking our immigration and refugees quotas (a good part of the number anyway) and offering them employment visas and pathway to citizenship here, instead of dragging people from off-continent.  But does an immigration scheme like that belong in a trade agreement? Probably not.


----------



## MARS (14 Sep 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Head: read reply 393. Bet you a beer I am correct.



I would agree you are correct.  Just today the CBC has a eloquent and well written analysis/opinion piece on exactly that.  

Your post is coming across as just another dickhead troll though, that's what TheHead docked you milpoints for, I think.   Your post is why this particular board/thread is a colossal waste of bandwidth, representing a troglodyte-like descent of intelligent, articulate, informed discourse into childish, bullshit name calling like 'Capt Canada'.  Save that shit for the comment section of the CBC website, or Reddit or whatever.  Its too bad this once awesome website is beginning to suck a lot lately.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Sep 2018)

No. It isn't cow towing, which is really naive statement IMHO. It's like saying everything is Harper's fault, or you are raciest if you disagree with a point of view. The US is our largest by far trading partner. They hold the big stick, not us. For the last 13 months Canada sent the Z team to negotiate with the experienced AAA team.

The intellectual cultural protections I think, is something new Canada threw in. Possibly it was there for the last 13 months.

Too bad our MSN is in bed with Trudeau. Notice, it appears to me, that the headlines of something not positive for the Trudeau government is: "Ottawa"; not "Trudeau's government", or the "Liberal government"? Remember Harper? Everything was "Harper". Note the photos on e.g. CBC web page of the hundreds at Trudeau's Saskatoon townhall the other day. Actually there were dozens. There is proof of this on the net.

Personally, I find it very humorous when people say they boycotting products from the US. Impossible. They obviously don't even watch TV, or listen to music, drive a vehicle, drink a double double, eat fresh fruit/veg in the winter, etc, etc.

Say what you will re Trump, but he is getting things done, while Canada's economy is sliding downward, investment is leaving.

The Liberals do what's best for the Liberals: what's good for Canada _maybe_ secondary (after the liberal bagmen are looked after  )

Personally I am sick of Trudeau's *shtick* of loose tie, partially rolled up sleeves. His idea of a middle income man of the people. Something he never was, and will never be. His voice, his attempt at speech is aggravating.

When you elect a part time drama teacher, snowboarder, what you get is Canada going downhill, fast.

Rant.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> No. It isn't cow towing, which is really naive statement IMHO. It's like saying everything is Harper's fault, or you are raciest if you disagree with a point of view. The US is our largest by far trading partner. They hold the big stick, not us. For the last 13 months Canada sent the Z team to negotiate with the experienced AAA team.
> 
> The intellectual cultural protections I think, is something new Canada threw in. Possibly it was there for the last 13 months.
> 
> ...



So, because they hold "the big stick" we should just be beholden to them? Moreover, why would Canada or any other nation want to deal with a US president who has shown that he is willing to just rip up any agreement?

The damage that Trump does to the US is long term for a limited short term gain. The entire US hegemony is based on negotiations, agreements, the rule of law, and other nations being willing partners in this enterprise. This goes from political measures such as the Monroe Doctrine to economic agreements such as Bretton Woods and the IMF, to the use of soft power such as movies and music. 

Trump, through his actions, is presenting America as a nation which no longer follows agreements but employs a "might is right" way of the world, an image where they "speak loudly and carry a big stick". This goes against the nature of the US and the historical and real strength of its power and influence in the global community. And for what? A GDP growth lower than Obama mustered (Trumps "record growth" would be Obama's 5th best- 5.1% in Q2 2014, 4.9% Q3 2014, 4.7% in Q4 2011, and 4.5% in Q4 2009)?

The Canadian government must do what is right for Canada and not care about Trump at all. We are their largest trading partner as well and their largest source of oil. They can't simply cut the rope. I think its naive to believe that the rest of the world hasn't taken note of the US actions. Perhaps the EU makes a deal with Trump and just cancels it when it's convenient. Like a North Korean nuclear deal....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Sep 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Like our prime minister's 40 some broken campaign promises? Or are those not agreements.
> 
> Trudeau's campaign played big on gender equality and indigenous rights.
> Once again we see how important those truly are to our government when push comes to shove.



Trudeau's broken promises or abject failure aren't the subject of this particular thread. Trump's breaking of international treaties does however relate in a very real sense to international trade agreements.

The gender equality and indigenous rights being built into NAFTA were clearly childish. Chapter 19 is important. Supply management could be taken away.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Sep 2018)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trudeau's broken promises or abject failure aren't the subject of this particular thread.


Personally I believe those along with our countries current foreign affairs and negeoiations team very much play into this threads theme. Including opening thrown away clauses. It adds insult to injury for people that actually believe in it. 




> The gender equality and indigenous rights being built into NAFTA were clearly childish.


Exactly. The government shouldn't be given a pass for that behavior, especially considering what's at stake. 



> Chapter 19 is important. Supply management could be taken away.


Agreed.


----------



## jmt18325 (15 Sep 2018)

It's worth pointing out that other recent agreements we've signed, like CETA, the CPTPP, and the agreement with some South American countries all have the chapters on gender, climate, and indigenous rights.  Those negotiations started before the Trudeau government.  It's clear no one is inserting them as a 'joke'.


----------



## FJAG (30 Sep 2018)

Here's hoping this isn't just wishful thinking:



> Canada, U.S. have reached a NAFTA deal, senior Canadian source says



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-finale-sunday-deadline-trump-1.4844623

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/theyre-in-the-final-strokes-canada-and-u-s-make-key-concessions-as-deal-in-sight-sources-say

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2018)

This is also being reported in the States.NAFTA IS ALIVE !!  

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/canada-us-reach-deal-to-save-nafta-as-trilateral-trade-pact/ar-BBNLRde?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## FJAG (1 Oct 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This is also being reported in the States.NAFTA IS ALIVE !!
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/canada-us-reach-deal-to-save-nafta-as-trilateral-trade-pact/ar-BBNLRde?ocid=spartanntp



Apparently it's being renamed the US Mexico Canada Agreement or USMCA now. Doesn't really trip off the tongue, does it?  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2018)

Details are still emerging but it looks like:

Chapter 19 dispute resolution remains intact.

Cultural protections remain intact.

No sunset clause. 

All wins for Canada.

In exchange for:  more US access to the dairy industry similar to what was conceded with CETA.

But no protection against retaliatory tariffs although it seems that Canada has manage dans to get some degree against auto tariffs.

Overall it looks like Canada can claim a good win on this.


----------



## brihard (1 Oct 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Details are still emerging but it looks like:
> 
> Chapter 19 dispute resolution remains intact.
> 
> ...



Yup, looks like we have come through this about as well as we could have hoped. The concessions on dairy are quite reasonable, and the auto sector tariff exemptions are an important plus. As much distaste as I have for our current government, they stood their ground against a bully and appear to have done very well on this file.


----------



## mariomike (1 Oct 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> Overall it looks like Canada can claim a good win on this.



I do not read much on international trade, so thanks for the explanation.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Oct 2018)

For the sake of all Canadians, I did not want to see the Liberals fail on this file, but it does seem that they got an ok deal inspite of themselves.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> For the sake of all Canadians, I did not want to see the Liberals fail on this file, but it does seem that they got an ok deal inspite of themselves.



Classic creating a pool of shit to swim in and coming out smelling like a rose. Trudeau should be buying lottery tickets and calling an early election before his inept luck runs out. From my perspective the US negotiators saved our asses because they really wanted a deal. Not because Trudeau and Freeland did a good job.

Kudos to the hard work and people behind the scenes that made this happen, despite the ineptitude, in the field of of negotiation, of our team leaders.


----------



## FJAG (1 Oct 2018)

I sh*t you not. This comes from an interview Trump gave a few days ago concerning NAFTA 2.0:



> Reporter: So will you pull out?
> 
> Trump: I'm not going to use the name NAFTA. I refuse to use it. I've seen thousands and plants and factories close. I've seen millions of jobs lost to auto companies that move. Mexico has 25% of our auto business now because of NAFTA. Under our deal, not going to happen any more. Hate to tell you, it's not. We're going to keep companies.
> 
> ...



https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/01/politics/trump-nafta-usmca-name/index.html

 :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Oct 2018)

The new NAFTA is now the USMCA. Que the Village People.


----------



## brihard (1 Oct 2018)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Classic creating a pool of crap to swim in and coming out smelling like a rose. Trudeau should be buying lottery tickets and calling an early election before his inept luck runs out. From my perspective the US negotiators saved our asses because they really wanted a deal. Not because Trudeau and Freeland did a good job.
> 
> Kudos to the hard work and people behind the scenes that made this happen, despite the ineptitude, in the field of of negotiation, of our team leaders.



No, they stood their ground enough on the issues that matter, they let the clock run knowing a midterm is coming that may strip Trump of his ability to get Congress to ratify anything, they engaged Mexico as well as US congressional leaders to push for reason and compromise, and they achieved about as good a win as we could. I know you’re utterly unwilling to give our current government credit for anything, but on this they did a pretty good job.


----------



## AlexanderM (1 Oct 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, they stood their ground enough on the issues that matter, they let the clock run knowing a midterm is coming that may strip Trump of his ability to get Congress to ratify anything, they engaged Mexico as well as US congressional leaders to push for reason and compromise, and they achieved about as good a win as we could. I know you’re utterly unwilling to give our current government credit for anything, but on this they did a pretty good job.


Agreed! They did a very good job in a difficult situation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> No, they stood their ground enough on the issues that matter, they let the clock run knowing a midterm is coming that may strip Trump of his ability to get Congress to ratify anything, they engaged Mexico as well as US congressional leaders to push for reason and compromise, and they achieved about as good a win as we could. I know you’re utterly unwilling to give our current government credit for anything, but on this they did a pretty good job.



Obviously,YMMV. I'm not as enamored with our leadership as you are. I don't believe our PM and Freeland are as smart and savvy as you do. You can opine as well as I can. It means nada to either of us. As I said earlier, I believe the back room negotiators, on both sides, made this happen despite the efforts of Trudeau and freeland. They weren't after a deal. They were after election points fighting with Trump. But that's just me, just like your retort holds no more weight or authority.


----------



## brihard (1 Oct 2018)

I’m not enamoured do our leadership at all, and at this point I intend to vote against them. That notwithstanding, they pushed back against a bullying approach from the south, and they appear to have met with considerable success.

Freeland is no dummy- Rhodes Scholarships don’t come in boxes of cereal. She likely knows well enough to engage and listen to her experts, which gives her a significant advantage over trade negotiation by the diktat of Trump. In the end our government - again one I am generally unhappy with - has done quite well on this one. Credit where it is due.


----------



## ballz (1 Oct 2018)

The only thing they did wrong was to not give up supply management and they didn't raise the de minimus high enough... it's so funny to me (the sad kind of funny) that our own gov't (of all stripes) continues to hurt Canadians with such self-inflicted, punitive protectionism.


----------



## AlexanderM (1 Oct 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I’m not enamoured do our leadership at all, and at this point I intend to vote against them. That notwithstanding, they pushed back against a bullying approach from the south, and they appear to have met with considerable success.
> 
> Freeland is no dummy- Rhodes Scholarships don’t come in boxes of cereal. She likely knows well enough to engage and listen to her experts, which gives her a significant advantage over trade negotiation by the diktat of Trump. In the end our government - again one I am generally unhappy with - has done quite well on this one. Credit where it is due.


I didn't vote for JT but might next time based on how they handled this situation. The way they, for the most part, didn't react, didn't escalate and waited until Trump had to make a deal to save his own political life in November, which he may have done. The deal we got was acceptable and I see that as being a win.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2018)

ballz said:
			
		

> The only thing they did wrong was to not give up supply management and they didn't raise the de minimus high enough... it's so funny to me (the sad kind of funny) that our own gov't (of all stripes) continues to hurt Canadians with such self-inflicted, punitive protectionism.



Yup, a $20 increase in the de minimum to $40 was a clear winner for team trudeau. Canadians will be going to the US in droves to take advantage of that. : I never agreed with supply management in the first place, so I'm glad to see a chunk taken out of that. If it translates to lost vote for the grits, so much the better. It'll be interesting to see how Canada is going to deal with Chinese steel now that the tariffs take a bite out of dumping it in the US.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2018)

John Ivison: Trudeau's claim of victory in trade deal is hollow - Canada was played
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/john-ivison-trudeaus-claim-of-victory-in-trade-deal-is-hollow-canada-was-played#

Today is a great day for Canada,” Justin Trudeau proclaimed, sounding like King Pyrrhus of Epirus, just after he lost the bulk of his army in battle against the Romans.

As with Pyrrhus, another victory like today and we will be utterly ruined."

More at link.


----------



## Remius (1 Oct 2018)

Chantal Hébert has a slightly different take on the deal.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2018/10/01/trade-agreement-is-unlikely-to-hurt-liberal-fortunes.html

This in particular: “Even before Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer had issued a single comment, a host of Conservative luminaries had come out to commend the agreement — starting with former interim leader Rona Ambrose and former prime minister Brian Mulroney. Manitoba Premier Brian Pallister and Alberta Conservative Leader Jason Kenney also had good words for the deal.”


----------



## a_majoor (1 Oct 2018)

I have the feeling there is a lot more than meets the eye. Some of the wording seemed a bit "weaselie" to me, particularly the issue of "Side Letters". Do these mean that issues like Chapter 19 are being revised out of sight/out of mind and Canada will find itself on the short end of the stick again? (A "Side Letter" review of Chapter 19 will essentially be the 5 year sunset clause the Americans insisted on all along). What else is being dealt with via "Side Letters"?

The only thing which this really does is provide a fig leaf for the Canadian negotiating team: they signed a deal (and look at how even the naming of the deal is worded-"United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement"), but there are a lot of things that are going to be changed via processes like Side Letters, and not to our liking.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Oct 2018)

I was going to post Ivison's editorial, but recceguy beat me to it.  Its worth the read before we pop open the champagne bottles and call this a win.  That being said, I'm not sure if a Conservative Party government could have done any better: the administration to the South has demonstrated time and again that it has interests - its own - and not friends.  Leaders who tried to schmooze the President (Abe, Macron) got their fingers burnt.

Lesson to be learned?  As Ted Campbell continuously points out on his blog, we better work on diversifying our trade - if anything to reduce our vulnerability the next time this happens.


----------



## FJAG (2 Oct 2018)

I don't think that it's being a Marxist unicorn which Trump doesn't like. I think he dislikes anyone who won't fawn on him and kiss his butt. He's not the type to be impressed with reasoned opposition.

I'm not sure if Conservatives could have gotten a better deal out of Trump because I, like you and most of us, have absolutely no idea what his end game was. This is a guy who given a name change from NAFTA to USMCA alone with nothing else would have spouted off that he's gained a massive victory and his base would have eaten it up as gospel truth. Giving him a few extra percentage points of milk quota put the icing on the cake. 

From what I can see there are several changes which seem to have zero or negligible impact today but could have some effects a decade down the road as our respective economies grow or change. I think that the biggest target for critics of the Liberals in the coming days will be the notifications we will have to give if seeking a treaty with a "non-market economy" (i.e. China). Article 32.10 requires that a party give notice and is required to make various disclosures to other parties if seeking to make an agreement with such an entity. Some are criticizing this as a loss of sovereignty but I note that the article is reciprocal so the US has the same obligations to us and Mexico.

A copy of the agreement text is here:

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement/united-states-mexico

I'm neither prepared to applaud nor chastise the Liberals on this one. Let's hope it works out okay in the end.

 [cheers]

<Removed inflammatory comment>


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2018)

Not really.  trump,started this.  

It’s over.  As far as I am concerned Canada stood firm against artificial deadlines and I am sure was ready to walk away knowing that the US needed a win on trade going into the midterms.  I am also sure that they read it right and to a gamble that Congress was not likely to back Trump’s bi lateral plan. 

The anti Trudeau crowd was so sure that the Liberals wanted to scuttle the whole thing for political gain.  Well that didn’t happen.  I know it is hard to accept for some but they got it done and likely scored political points at the same time.  I guess some people didn’t see that coming.


----------



## brihard (2 Oct 2018)

And don’t forget, we went into this with a gun to the head of our auto sector, after already suffering an attack - and I choose that word deliberately - on our steel and aluminum. Trump himself has spoken of a trade war. Well if it’s a war, Trump is on one side and Canada is on the other, and you can only pick one or the other. In the end, despite the blustering and threats, it appears the adults prevailed and we have at least reached a détent, though much remains to be seen.

Trump will continue to have his supporters and apologists here who value his politics above our own economy, and value his populism over common decency. It is what it is. We have at least come out of this one pretty OK, and given the strength the US wields and our utter economic dependence on them, we hav some key victories in the preservation of the dispute resolution and the built in tariff exemptions for cars. We weathered the storm well, and hopefully in another month he will lose Congress and we will be less subject to his petulant outbursts, at least in tangible terms.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Oct 2018)

Article about Mexico-US-Canada trade and the role of Jared Kushner in saving the deal.  

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-kushner/how-trumps-son-in-law-helped-a-1-2-trillion-trade-zone-stay-intact-idUSKCN1MC04M


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2018)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Article about Mexico-US-Canada trade and the role of Jared Kushner in saving the deal.
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-kushner/how-trumps-son-in-law-helped-a-1-2-trillion-trade-zone-stay-intact-idUSKCN1MC04M



Interesting article.  Thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2018)

Admitting I'm no saint myself perhaps in the name of decorum in the politics threads we should try and avoid subtle jabs at one another?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Oct 2018)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I was going to post Ivison's editorial, but recceguy beat me to it.  Its worth the read before we pop open the champagne bottles and call this a win.  That being said, _*I'm not sure if a Conservative Party government could have done any better: the administration to the South has demonstrated time and again that it has interests - its own - and not friends.*_  Leaders who tried to schmooze the President (Abe, Macron) got their fingers burnt.
> 
> Lesson to be learned?  As Ted Campbell continuously points out on his blog, we better work on diversifying our trade - if anything to reduce our vulnerability the next time this happens.




+300 for the highlighted bit, and thanks for the plug ... 

It is damned hard to diversify trade: the Americans are so close and, generally, despite the current POTUS, so open, and, also generally, so fair that it's hard to not want to put most of our trade eggs in their basket. They are, in most respects, just about our domestic market. In fact I suspect that one of Robert Lighthizer's aims is to "domesticate" Canada so that we are even more closely tied to the USA.

In this case geography is both a short term friend and, perhaps, a long term enemy.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Oct 2018)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> +300 for the highlighted bit, and thanks for the plug ...
> 
> It is damned hard to diversify trade: the Americans are so close and, generally, despite the current POTUS, so open, and, also generally, so fair that it's hard to not want to put most of our trade eggs in their basket. They are, in most respects, just about our domestic market. In fact I suspect that one of Robert Lighthizer's aims is to "domesticate" Canada so that we are even more closely tied to the USA.
> 
> In this case geography is both a short term friend and, perhaps, a long term enemy.



Having now had a day and a half to think about this deal, I think Edward has it about right. As much as anyone can decern a US "strategy", I think it was to create a unified North American trading bloc where the US calls the shots.

Given what I have read about this deal and the quotas on future car imports from Canada; the 6 year review clause; the establishment of a bank rate committee and the requirement for any partner in the USMCA now to seek approval from the other partners if one is to sign free trade agreement outside of the deal, I think there is a significant loss of sovereignty for Canada. Maybe it is just a nod to reality.

It is now an interesting thought experiment, but what if Canada had gone to 2% GDP on defence and had bougt F35 and done BMD (and probably a few other things) would we have had a different deal? A better deal?

This is not just a Liberal problem- the Conservatives have under-funded defence at every possible chance, too. Both parties have taken their cues from an apathetic Canadian public that likes to be sovereign, but doesn't actually want to pay the freight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2018)

Brihard said:
			
		

> And don’t forget, we went into this with a gun to the head of our auto sector, after already suffering an attack - and I choose that word deliberately - on our steel and aluminum. Trump himself has spoken of a trade war. Well if it’s a war, Trump is on one side and Canada is on the other, and you can only pick one or the other. In the end, despite the blustering and threats, it appears the adults prevailed and we have at least reached a détent, though much remains to be seen.
> 
> Trump will continue to have his supporters and apologists here who value his politics above our own economy, and value his populism over common decency. It is what it is. We have at least come out of this one pretty OK, and given the strength the US wields and our utter economic dependence on them, we hav some key victories in the preservation of the dispute resolution and the built in tariff exemptions for cars. We weathered the storm well, and hopefully in another month he will lose Congress and we will be less subject to his petulant outbursts, at least in tangible terms.



"Trump will continue to have his supporters and apologists here who value his politics above our own economy, and value his populism over common decency."

Whoa, who are you speaking of in this quote of yours? I'm confused and need clarification on who the indecent Trump apologist to Canada is (that's what you were going for, right?). This sounds very much like a personal attack on someone here. Someone you don't agree with, but instead of discussing, you attack their patriotism and political belief because of a personal bias you have with them and their ideas. Not something I'd expect from someone of your profession. However, that's why I asked for clarification, from the horse's mouth.

Much like when people lie through their teeth about someone being a very hard, long time far right supporter. Trying to paint that person as a supremacist or a racist or something they are not.

Have I got that right? Just need some clarification, is all. I resigned as a Moderator and I'm feeling my way around as a normal poster. I'm planning on being here a whole bunch more and need to see exactly where the line is. I need to know if writing, something like you did, even if that person is not identified by name (though common knowledge, here, identifies them) would be considered a sideways slap that would get someone else warned. Given your propensity for the technique, your past Moderator experience and the senior member stature you hold, I'm guessing you're not breaking any rules.

This info will help me form a writing style that gets my point(s) across without getting in trouble. Thanks for the help :mountie:


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2018)

I will ahve to disagree with you FJAG, in the sense that "we" did not know what the Americans wanted. Once you discount the big opening moves to uput us off balance, there are several things which the US clearly is looking to achieve with the current round of trade negotiations:

1. Replacing multilateral deals with bilateral deals. This provides far more flexibility for the President and the Congress to make adjustments to trade deals, without having to drag all and sundry into the negotiations. This is likely to be retained by future administrations because of the ability to tailor deals to reflect changing conditions.

2. Reduce US trade deficits. This is a long standing issue with President Trump, you can find a YouTube video of him saying exactly the same thing in 1989 on the Oprah Winfrey Show (and the audience then was actually listening to this with a great deal of interest and respect). Any trade deal or renegotiated one will have to provide the openings for US goods and services to be traded on a more "equitable" basis. If you think that is selfish or foolish, remember the saying that nations have no permanent friends and allies, only permanent interests. The US is looking out for a permanent interest.

3. Hampering the expansion of Chinese military, political and economic power. This is actually far more subtle than people are willing to give credit for. China exports far more to the United States than it imports, so tariffs work asymmetrically. As well, China's economy is heavily invested in exporting, anything which slows the flow of exports also slows the Chinese economy. Edward has told us at length that the "Red Dynasty's Mandate from Heaven" relies on continuing economic growth. Since China is also heavily leveraged, there could be follow on consequences to slowing economic growth as well.

4. Closing back doors. China uses Canada as a back door to enter the American market tariff free, and the Administration was determined to close that door.

On this side, Canada has failed rather spectacularly.

1. We knew this was coming as far back as the 2016 election campaign, but the actions of the negotiating team are those of people thrown into the game at the last minute.

2. Canada has not cleared the decks internally to deal with possible fallout of NAFTA negotiations. We have no internal Free Trade between provinces. Our Hydrocarbon industry is crippled and Canada loses billions of dollars in potential revenues because there are no pipelines to bring oil to markets (and adding insult to injury, we still need to spend billions more _importing_ foreign oil....)

3. Canada's negotiating team seems to have no understanding of US domestic politics. They looked for support from Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, despite the fact these are _lame duck_ senators, with very limited ability left to advance our cause in the Congress. They also failed to understand that NAFTA and jobs is a huge domestic issue in the United States, and President Trump could play it very hard, especially against Senators and Congressmen who were inclined to vote against the new trade deal. Nothing like having angry constituents at your door.

4. Canada also seems to have no plan "B". We have hardly taken advantage of being in  the TPP or CETA (indeed Andrew Sheer tried to get a special session of Parliament to debate the issue), and I hardly have to point out that Canada was essentially kicked to the curb by _both_ China and India when seeking new trade deals. If we knew that NAFTA might be a difficult issue, then there should have been a full court press to fully diversify our trade. Currently, 75% of our exports go to the United States and that makes about 20% of our GDP. The math is apocalyptic. And placing tariffs against the US? The amount of GDP they get from exports to us is about 1%; a rounding error.

So we, or at least people who paid attention, knew what the US wanted in the negotiations, and also knew just what level of disadvantage we were going into. Yet despite that, we failed to prepare for the negotiations either internally or externally, and so will be paying the price for a long time to come.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2018)

Too bad the world didn't have the gonads to take Trump up on his offer of zero tariff 100% free trade. But that would be true capitalism in action. Markets and goods sold and traded, more and more, based on quality and expense and what people want. Not what the government wants. Shysters and cheap goods eventually fall by the wayside to become the Made in Japan junk products of the 50's.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2018)

Here it is, THE win the Untied States got in the USMCA deal:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/01/massive-win-nafta-loophole-closed-canada-and-mexico-agree-to-u-s-approval-authority-of-any-future-trade-agreements-with-third-parties/

Read the article and digest what that really means.....


----------



## mariomike (2 Oct 2018)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Read the article and digest what that really means.....



I didn't study international trade in school. So, how much credibility can I give a blogger named "sundance"?


----------



## Remius (2 Oct 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I didn't study international trade in school. So, how much credibility can I give a blogger named "sundance"?



True.  But the article has merit.

This from MacLean's touches on the same issue amongst others.  

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-usmca-keeps-canada-in-americas-thrall/

Also Thucydides gets a special mention in the article  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2018)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I didn't study international trade in school. So, how much credibility can I give a blogger named "sundance"?



I didn't read the blog. The Article is there in black and white and pretty well says it all. No course on International Trade required nor insight into 'sundance's' brain housing group.


----------



## mariomike (2 Oct 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> This from MacLean's touches on the same issue amongst others.



Thank-you. 

By David Moscrop, 

"David Moscrop is a political scientist and a writer. He’s currently working on a book about why we make bad political decisions and how we can make better ones. He’s at @david_moscrop on Twitter. He lives in Vancouver."

Nice to know who the author is.  

No offence to "sundance".


----------



## garb811 (2 Oct 2018)

This is getting a lock while the DS sort a few things out. 

-Milnet.ca staff


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Oct 2018)

Ladies and gentlemen,

Things started to get out of hand enough that we had to hand out a few strikes. This is your not so subtle reminder to debate the issues, and not target the poster. Talking about "apologists", "petulant childs", and "marxist unicorns" are unacceptable in civil discourse and on this forum. If people cannot stay in line with the forum and specifically the political thread guidelines, those individuals will lose the privilege of posting in these types of threads. This is not a partisan issue so do not assume this warning does not apply to one side or the other.

- Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2018)

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2018/10/01/usmca-dont-fall-for-justin-trudeaus-deceptive-nafta-spin/

USMCA: Don’t Fall For Justin Trudeau’s Deceptive NAFTA Spin

"Avoiding total disaster is not the same as succeeding.

As predicted, the Trudeau government is claiming that the new NAFTA deal – now called the United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) – is a ‘win’ for Canada.

They have to say this, and would have said exactly the same thing no matter what the agreement was.

Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s true, and we need to make sure we don’t fall for Justin Trudeau’s deceptive spin.

Consider what was said by Daniel Dale – who nobody could ever call a Trump apologist:

    “I’m hearing a bunch of this from Trump critics, but it’s not correct. There are numerous changes in the new agreement. Incremental changes but real changes, several of which are Canadian and Mexican concessions to Trump.”


More at Link


----------



## Remius (3 Oct 2018)

Spencer Fernando has the cap on auto exports wrong.  The cap is an exemption should the US ever put tariffs on autos.  Essentially a level of security for Canada should that threat ever materialise.  Very much a plus for Canada.  

Aluminum and steel are still an issue.  But not NAFTA related.  

Rona Ambrose, James Moore, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell, Jason Kenney are only some of the conservatives applauding this deal. 

Maybe conservatives like Andrew Scheer should highlight the conservative contribution to this deal instead of trying to make it sound like a disaster that isn’t really one.  I understand he owes the dairy industry but I don’t think that will translate to significant votes come election time.


----------



## Remius (3 Oct 2018)

The Washington Post on the winners and losers.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/winners-losers-usmca-trade-deal/?utm_term=.1dda2f5d2ccb

A good overview.  Trump wins, Trudeau wins.  Mexico and China seem to be the bigger losers in this deal.


----------



## FJAG (3 Oct 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> The Washington Post on the winners and losers.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/winners-losers-usmca-trade-deal/?utm_term=.1dda2f5d2ccb
> 
> A good overview.  Trump wins, Trudeau wins.  Mexico and China seem to be the bigger losers in this deal.



Sadly it's behind a pay wall.

 :brickwall:


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Oct 2018)

Here it is:

*USMCA: Who are the winners and losers of the ‘new NAFTA’?*
_Trump and Trudeau can tout this as a major victory ahead of key elections in their countries. It’s a lot less clear whether ‘NAFTA 2.0’ is good for Mexico and U.S. automakers._

The United States, Canada and Mexico finalized a sweeping new trade deal late Sunday, just hours before their Oct. 1 deadline. President Trump was up early Monday tweeting that the agreement is “a great deal for all three countries,” and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Sunday night that it was a “good day for Canada.”

The deal is expected to take effect around Jan. 1, 2020. Congress has to approve it, a process that will take months, but confirmation looks likely, given that Republicans are pleased Canada got on board and some Democrats are pleased with the stronger labor provisions.

Here’s a look at who’s smiling — and who’s not — as the world sees this news. (For a rundown of what’s in the deal, click here).

_Winners:_
President Trump. He got a major trade deal done and will be able to say it’s another “promise kept” to his voters right before the midterm elections. And he won the messaging game — he persuaded Canada and Mexico to ditch the name “NAFTA,” for North American Free Trade Agreement, which he hated, and to instead call the new agreement “USMCA,” for United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It’s not a total trade revolution, as Trump promised, but USMCA does make substantial changes to modernize trade rules in effect from 1994 to 2020, and it give some wins to U.S. farmers and blue-collar workers in the auto sector. Trump beat his doubters, and his team can now turn to the No. 1 trade target: China.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. There might not be a lot of love lost between Trump and Trudeau, but in the end, Trudeau didn’t cave much on his key issues: dairy and Chapter 19, the treaty’s dispute resolution mechanism. Trudeau held out and got what he wanted: Canada’s dairy supply management system stays mostly intact, and Chapter 19 remains in place, a win for the Canadian lumber sector. On dairy, Canada is mainly giving U.S. farmers more ability to sell milk protein concentrate, skim milk powder and infant formula. On top of the substantive issues, Trump went out of his way to criticize the Canadian negotiating team in the final days of deliberations, which Trudeau can play up as a sign of just how hard his staff fought on this deal.

Labor unions. This agreement stipulates that at least 30 percent of cars (rising to 40 percent by 2023) must be made by workers earning $16 an hour, about three times the typical manufacturing wage in Mexico now. USMCA also stipulates that Mexico must make it easier for workers to form unions. The AFL-CIO is cautiously optimistic that this truly is a better deal for U.S. and Canadian workers in terms of keeping jobs from going to lower-paying Mexico or to Asia, although labor is looking carefully at how the new rules will be enforced. It’s possible this could accelerate automation, but that would take time.

U.S. dairy farmers. They regain some access to the Canadian market, especially for what is known as “Class 7” milk products such as milk powder and milk proteins. The United States used to sell a lot of Class 7 products to Canada, but that changed in recent years when Canada started heavily regulating this new class. USMCA also imposes some restrictions on how much dairy Canada can export, a potential win for U.S. dairy farmers if they are able to capitalize on foreign markets.

Stock market investors. A major worry is over, and the U.S. stock market rallied Monday with the Dow gaining nearly 200 points.

Robert E. Lighthizer. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin couldn’t get major trade deals done for the president, but U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer did. He led negotiations with South Korea on the revamped U.S.-South Korea trade deal (KORUS) that the president just signed, as well as on the “new NAFTA.” Lighthizer is proving to be the trade expert closest to Trump’s ear.
_
Losers:_
China. Trump is emboldened on trade. A senior administration official said Sunday that the U.S.-Canada-Mexico deal “has become a playbook for future trade deals.” The president believes his strategy is working, and he’s now likely to go harder after China because his attention won’t be diverted elsewhere (at least on trade matters).

U.S. car buyers. Economists and auto experts think USMCA is going to cause car prices in the United States to rise and the selection to go down, especially on small cars that used to be produced in Mexico but may not be able to be brought across the border duty-free anymore. It’s unclear how much prices could rise (estimates vary), but automakers can’t rely as heavily on cheap Mexican labor now and there will probably be higher compliance costs.

Canadian steel. Trump’s tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum remain in place for now, something Trudeau has called “insulting” since the two countries are longtime allies with similar labor standards.

_Unclear:_
Mexico. America’s southern neighbor kept a trade deal in place, but it had to make a lot of concessions to Trump. It’s possible this could stall some of Mexico’s manufacturing growth, and it’s unclear whether wages really will rise in Mexico because of this agreement. Big energy companies can also still challenge Mexico via Chapter 11, something that could constrain Mexico’s new government as it aims to reform energy policies.

Ford, GM, Chrysler and other big auto companies. There’s relief among auto industry executives that the deal is done, but costs will be high for big car companies: The steel tariffs are still in place on Canada; more car parts have to come from North America (not cheaper Asia); and more car components have to be made at wages of $16 an hour. It remains to be seen how car companies are able to adjust and whether this has long-term ramifications for their bottom lines.

Big business. Many business groups are relieved that Trump got a trilateral deal and didn’t end up tearing up NAFTA entirely, as he had threatened to do. And they like a lot of the trademark and patent provisions. But the details of USMCA include some losses for big business. Some regulatory compliance costs will probably rise, especially for automakers, and big business lost Chapter 11, the investor dispute settlement mechanism that companies have used to sue Canadian and Mexican governments (the one exception is that energy and telecommunications firms still get a modified Chapter 11 with Mexico).


NOTE:  I was able to access the article without hitting a paywall.  Accordingly, I am leaving this post as is in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act. -Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Retired AF Guy (4 Oct 2018)

From the Washington Post article:



> _USMCA also imposes some restrictions on how much dairy Canada can export, a potential win for U.S. dairy farmers if they are able to capitalize on foreign markets._



This is the first time I've seen this mentioned. Does anybody have any details?


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2018)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> From the Washington Post article:
> 
> This is the first time I've seen this mentioned. Does anybody have any details?



The provision is found in Annex 3-B "Agricultural Trade Between the United States and Canada" in Part C "Dairy Pricing and Exports" on page 3-C-8 starting at para 7 which reads:



> 7. Canada shall monitor its global exports of milk protein concentrates, skim milk powder, and
> infant formula and provide information regarding those exports to the United States as specified in
> paragraph 12.
> 8.
> ...



https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/files/agreements/FTA/USMCA/03%20Agriculture%20US-CA%20Annex%20clean.pdf

I'm not so sure if that this is a limitation/restriction but rather a requirement to add an "export charge" on quantities over the prescribed amounts. I won't pretend to analyze what this effectively means to the industry.

 :cheers:


----------



## kratz (6 May 2019)

ref: CTV.ca

I'm glad NAFTA remains in place, vice the agreement we were cornered into with USMCA.



> Trump 'messed up the clock' on USMCA, current form 'dead': former U.S. ambassador
> Published Sunday, May 5, 2019 7:00AM EDT
> 
> OTTAWA – U.S. President Donald Trump has "messed up the clock" on getting the renegotiated NAFTA deal ratified, and it may now die in its current form, says former U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman.
> ...



more at link.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Jul 2019)

The USMCA may be "dead", but it's sure taking its time dying.


----------



## brihard (6 Aug 2020)

Looks like Trump's trade war is back on. The US is putting a 10% tariff on our aluminum, and Canada will be retaliating 'dollar for dollar'.

https://financialpost.com/news/economy/canadian-press-newsalert-trump-slaps-tariffs-on-canadian-raw-aluminum

Once again, Trump supporters in Canada will find themselves awkwardly having to choose between supporting the US president, and supporting the Canadian industrial sector that he's attacking. It will be disingenuous for anyone to claim to do both.

This further highlights the inherently transactional nature of Trump's foreign policy.


----------



## Weinie (7 Aug 2020)

Not unsurprising, in a neck to neck election run-up (if you believe the polls) to see POTUS pandering to his base. If he is re-elected in November, he can always roll them back, if he loses, it becomes Joe Biden's and the Dems problem. Win/not lose.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Aug 2020)

> https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/aluminum-facts/20510
> 
> In nature, aluminum does not exist in a pure state. The production of primary aluminum metal begins with* bauxite ore*, which is composed of hydrated aluminum oxide (40% to 60%) mixed with silica and iron oxide.
> 
> ...



China is a large exporter of bauxite: Exporters - Rank	Country	Bauxite Production (in thousand tonnes), 2014
1	Australia	81,000
2	China	47,000
3	Brazil	32,500
4	Guinea      19,300


----------



## FJAG (7 Aug 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Not unsurprising, in a neck to neck election run-up (if you believe the polls) to see POTUS pandering to his base. If he is re-elected in November, he can always roll them back, if he loses, it becomes Joe Biden's and the Dems problem. Win/not lose.



But this increases the price of his base's beer cans.  ;D



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> China is a large exporter of bauxite: Exporters - Rank	Country	Bauxite Production (in thousand tonnes), 2014
> 1	Australia	81,000
> 2	China	47,000
> 3	Brazil	32,500
> 4	Guinea      19,300





> Bauxite mining in the United States produced an estimated 128,000 metric tonnes of bauxite in 2013.[1] Although the United States was an important source of bauxite in the early 20th century, it now supplies less than one percent of world bauxite production.
> 
> Bauxite is the only commercial ore of aluminium, and 96 percent of bauxite consumed in the US is used to produce aluminum (metallurgical grade).[2] However, since 1981, none of the bauxite mined in the US was used to make metallic aluminium. US bauxite is instead used for abrasives, high-temperature refractory materials, and as a high-strength proppant for hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bauxite_mining_in_the_United_States



> The US also imported 33 percent of the aluminum metal that was used in 2014. Of the imported aluminum, 63% came from Canada ...
> 
> The US used to be a much more important factor in the world primary aluminum market. As recently as 1981, the US produced 30% of the world's primary aluminum, and for many years up through 2000, the US was the world's largest producer of primary aluminum. In 2014, by contrast, the US ranked sixth in primary aluminum production, and provided only 3.5% of world production.
> 
> US production of primary aluminum peaked in 1980 at 4.64 million metric tons. Since then, US primary aluminum production has fallen by more than half, but secondary production has increased, making up much of the difference. In the 1950s and 1960s, primary production made up about 80% of the aluminum output. In 2014, primary production made up 32%, while secondary from new scrap made up 36% and secondary from old scrap made up 32% of US aluminum production.[1]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_industry_in_the_United_States

One of the most significant costs in producing aluminum is electricity and Quebec has a major advantage there with the long term hydro contracts it established with Newfoundland and Labrador through Churchill Falls which will continue until 2041 at the fixed rates negotiated some 55 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_Falls_Generating_Station

It's not really dumping per se. Just a really great economic input costs advantage that Quebec has.

 :cheers:


----------



## Infanteer (7 Aug 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Trump supporters in Canada will find themselves awkwardly having to choose between supporting the US president, and supporting the Canadian industrial sector that he's attacking. It will be disingenuous for anyone to claim to do both.



But Obama was bad, and Hillary was worse!


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Aug 2020)

Just wondering when the last time a politician didn’t pander to their base was. Hmmm... nope, I got nothing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> Just wondering when the last time a politician didn’t pander to their base was. Hmmm... nope, I got nothing.



I bet you the LPC manipulated Trump into doing these tariffs to take Canadians attention off the WE conflict of interest and corruption.


----------



## Weinie (7 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> _*Just wondering when the last time a politician didn%u2019t pander to their base was.*_ Hmmm... nope, I got nothing.



How about when the current gov't announced the CERB, and then extended it twice. Hit across all political spectrums. I digress.

Hopefully, we are still talking Canada/US trade relations.

Canada, Europe, the ME, SA, China, and Russia are all (minor) pieces in the run up to the election. There will be proclamations. 

The implications for Canada are minimal.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> One of the most significant costs in producing aluminum is electricity and Quebec has a major advantage there with the long term hydro contracts it established with Newfoundland and Labrador through Churchill Falls which will continue until 2041 at the fixed rates negotiated some 55 years ago.
> 
> :cheers:



Actually, FJAG, while the Churchill Falls contract turned out (it wasn't planned that way as no one expected the economics of electricity to turn so lopsided when it was negotiated) to be a great deal for Quebec and Churchill Falls power plant is the second largest one in Hydro-Quebec's inventory, it is still just a small part of the Quebec Hydro-power advantage.

Hydro-Quebec can generate a bit over 46,000 MW of power, of which about 5500 are from Churchill, leaving a bit more than 40,000 from the other Quebec Hydro Dam. So Churchill is important but is only about 12% of the overall production. See: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-eng.html

And that production of Quebec does not include non Hydro-Quebec generation - and around the Saguenay area, there is still lots of private generation. The City of Saguenay itself generates 18 MW independently of Hydro-Quebec ( https://promotion.saguenay.ca/en/choose-saguenay/nos-secteurs-cles/energy ).

In fact, Aluminium smelting in the Saguenay region goes back almost to the turn of the 20th century specifically because local hydro power generation was so cheap and easily harnessed there. It predates the construction of Churchill falls by more than 50 years. Here's an extract of the story of  Alcoa, at Arvida: https://www.citedelaluminium.ca/en/aluminumplant/ , but remember that Alcan (now Rio-Tinto) was in Saguenay even before and actually operates its own power plant (Shipshaw), which they updated again only few years back ( https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/rio-tinto-alcan-inaugurates-the-completion-of-the-shipshaw-powerhouse-project-in-saguenay-quebec-511171501.html ).

So the hydro-power advantage of Quebec is a whole lot more than just Churchill Falls.


----------



## FJAG (7 Aug 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ...
> So the hydro-power advantage of Quebec is a whole lot more than just Churchill Falls.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (8 Aug 2020)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, FJAG, while the Churchill Falls contract turned out (it wasn't planned that way as no one expected the economics of electricity to turn so lopsided when it was negotiated) to be a great deal for Quebec and Churchill Falls power plant is the second largest one in Hydro-Quebec's inventory, it is still just a small part of the Quebec Hydro-power advantage.
> 
> Hydro-Quebec can generate a bit over 46,000 MW of power, of which about 5500 are from Churchill, leaving a bit more than 40,000 from the other Quebec Hydro Dam. So Churchill is important but is only about 12% of the overall production. See: https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/nrg/ntgrtd/mrkt/nrgsstmprfls/qc-eng.html
> 
> ...



Indeed, HQ doesn't even need Churchill Falls.  The La Grande River Hydro Complex is super impressive.  I have visited The Robert Bourassa Generating Station and it alone makes enough electricity to power the entire Island of Montreal.  Hydro Quebec has 10 other dams on that River alone and sells most of their electricity to New England and now Ontario, who due to very poor investments and failure to upgrade facilities, now have to buy electricity from Quebec at a considerable markup.


----------



## FJAG (8 Aug 2020)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Indeed, HQ doesn't even need Churchill Falls.  The La Grande River Hydro Complex is super impressive.  I have visited The Robert Bourassa Generating Station and it alone makes enough electricity to power the entire Island of Montreal.  Hydro Quebec has 10 other dams on that River alone and sells most of their electricity to New England and now Ontario, who due to very poor investments and failure to upgrade facilities, now have to buy electricity from Quebec at a considerable markup.



And when it overproduces hydro, it sells it at a loss to New York, especially very expensive wind turbine energy at a loss.  Thank you Wynne and the Liberals. :facepalm:

https://torontosun.com/news/provincial/ontario-lost-up-to-1-2-billion-selling-clean-energy-at-a-loss-engineers

And to think, Ontario grew as the industrial power base of Canada in the middle of the last century primarily because of its cheap and abundant hydro power supply. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Aug 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ...And to think, Ontario grew as the industrial power base of Canada in the middle of the last century primarily because of its cheap and abundant hydro power supply.
> 
> :cheers:



...and (at the time) well-managed nuclear power production capacity.


----------



## lenaitch (8 Aug 2020)

The problem Ontario had was its 'cheap and abundant' hydro power, particularly Niagara - closest to the industrial/population centre,  was tapped out fairly early on.  The development costs for nuclear scared, and scares, the pants off government, coupled with the numerous lobby groups and the unanswered questions of waste disposal.

Ontario doesn't have the topography in the north that Quebec does, nor the massive prairie-draining rivers of Manitoba, to generate much more than it already does.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2020)

Americans stay home is the message. Even cars with US cars are vandalized. Not very welcoming.  ;D

https://news.yahoo.com/canada-u-visitors-please-dont-140830170.html


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Aug 2020)

If it’s any consolation to you, the new favourite sport in the interior of BC is vandalizing vehicles with Alberta tags.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2020)

Target Up said:
			
		

> If it’s any consolation to you, the new favourite sport in the interior of BC is vandalizing vehicles with Alberta tags.



 :rofl:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (9 Aug 2020)

lenaitch said:
			
		

> The problem Ontario had was its 'cheap and abundant' hydro power, particularly Niagara - closest to the industrial/population centre,  was tapped out fairly early on.  The development costs for nuclear scared, and scares, the pants off government, coupled with the numerous lobby groups and the unanswered questions of waste disposal.
> 
> Ontario doesn't have the topography in the north that Quebec does, nor the massive prairie-draining rivers of Manitoba, to generate much more than it already does.



Which may be why Ontario, joined with Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and now Albertato investigate the use of Small Modular (Nuclear) Reactors for future energy needs.


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Aug 2020)

:nod:  SMRs will figure heavily in the future of power production.


----------



## Donald H (19 Aug 2020)

Tradionally, the Democratic Party has never boded well for Canada/US trade relations. 
However, Trump certainly becomes a wild card for the Republicans, even though he usually makes a loud noise on trade relations with any country before pulling in his horns.


----------



## Remius (15 Sep 2020)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/aluminum-tariffs-trade-trump-trudeau-1.5724391


Interesting about face.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Sep 2020)

But the border remains closed until late November. Less bugs would be encountered that late.


----------



## shawn5o (28 Sep 2020)

Hopefully, good news for Aberta's oil sector


*Alberta's oilpatch gets a rare gift — a U.S-backed $22-billion export line to tidewater via Alaska*
_The proposed railway project, expected to be approved by President Trump, could create 18,000 Canadian jobs_

Yadullah Hussain
Sep 28, 2020  •  Last Updated 3 hours ago  •  5 minute read

It may well be his last few weeks in office (at least according to the public polls), but U.S. President Donald Trump just gave Alberta oil producers a gift.

Amid his increasingly-deranged conspiracy theory tweets over the weekend, he broadcast a more presidential tweet on Friday: “Based on the strong recommendation of @SenDanSullivan and @repdonyoung of the Great State of Alaska, it is my honor to inform you that I will be issuing a Presidential Permit for the A2A Cross-Border Rail between Alaska & Canada. Congratulations to the people of Alaska & Canada!”

Dan Sullivan is a U.S. senator serving Alaska, and Don Young is a Congressman serving the American last frontier. The U.S. president has been sweet on the Canadian oilpatch before, having approved TC Energy Corp.’s Keystone XL pipeline project which had been rejected by the previous president Barack Obama. If it proceeds, the railway project could serve as another important outlet for Alberta’s oil producers who have struggled due to lack of pipeline capacity. However, railway lines are deemed to be a more expensive way to transport oil compared to pipelines.

The proposed 2,570-kilometre A2A railway aims to transport bulk commodities such oil, grain and ore in addition to containerized goods, and aims to develop “a new railway connecting the Alaska Railroad and Alaska’s tidewater, to northern Alberta.”

The project is expected to cost $22 billion, of which $7 billion will be built in Alaska and $15 billion in Alberta, according to the company.

More at Financial Post


----------



## CBH99 (28 Sep 2020)

Pretty sad when the POTUS seems to do more for our oil industry than the current PM   :


The Tekk project eventually pulled out & gave up, after waiting ages for federal approval.  This happened despite having every single local indigenous group supporting the project, and them having met or drastically exceeded all of the environmental requirements.  It was slated to be a world class project, and the greenest oil & gas industry project in history.  It also slated to employ about 8,000 people.

They eventually gave up and pulled the plug, as they were tired of waiting for our government to give the approval.



And here's the US, whether intentional or not, giving Alberta some kind of 'kickstart' to the economy - when our own PM couldn't care less.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (28 Sep 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Pretty sad when the POTUS seems to do more for our oil industry than the current PM   :
> 
> 
> The Tekk project eventually pulled out & gave up, after waiting ages for federal approval.  This happened despite having every single local indigenous group supporting the project, and them having met or drastically exceeded all of the environmental requirements.  It was slated to be a world class project, and the greenest oil & gas industry project in history.  It also slated to employ about 8,000 people.
> ...



It will be interesting to see if the US had consulted with Canada before announcing the deal.


----------



## Remius (28 Sep 2020)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see if the US had consulted with Canada before announcing the deal.



People sometimes forget it takes two to tango.


----------



## brihard (28 Sep 2020)

shawn5o said:
			
		

> Hopefully, good news for Aberta's oil sector
> 
> 
> *Alberta's oilpatch gets a rare gift — a U.S-backed $22-billion export line to tidewater via Alaska*
> ...



If the intent is to move oil by rail, good luck getting Yukon’s First Nations on side. They’re mostly self governing and have comprehensive land claims. This is not a sure thing by any means.


----------



## Donald H (3 Oct 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Pretty sad when the POTUS seems to do more for our oil industry than the current PM   :



Our PM has concerns relating to 'climate change', while their Potus has pretty much declared that he doesn't believe it'a a real issue. The debate is still very much alive.
There's always the possibility that Trudeau's stand is completely politically motivated by popular politics but I would say it's much more than that. For now I give him the benefit of the doubt and would suggest that he truly believes in the fast approaching crisis.

 :cheers:


----------

