# Trudeau U.S. visit delivers wake-up call about new North American reality



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2021)

Trudeau's legacy for Canada might be prolonged economic decline, hastened by our 'closest friend', fostered by dithering and weakness on the world stage and elsewhere:


What could Canada do differently?​Trudeau's own domestic critics might contend that some of our lost clout is self-inflicted. That Canada talks more than it contributes in world affairs, in terms of peacekeeping, foreign aid, or continental defence. 

Or that Canada could, as Stephen Harper has suggested, have used the NAFTA renegotiation to try reverting back to a more one-on-one relationship with the U.S. 

Or that Canada has frustrated the U.S. by not articulating a clear China policy or taking a stand on letting Huawei into the 5G network.

We can't test those counterfactuals now.

What we can do is take stock of the world as it currently is compared to the world we are accustomed to.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trudeau-us-analysis-nals-1.6254958


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2021)

I remember a time growing up as a young boy in Toronto in the 60s when southern Ontario was the heart of Canada's manufacturing industry fueled by cheap hydroelectric power and local steel production. The country was a storehouse of raw materials. Any imports from China or Japan were in the cheap toys and trinkets category.

We've taken our eyes off the ball for a very long time and policy after policy has crippled that industry. Whether its the bundles of red tape which makes it difficult to start up and continue to run a business; the ever increasing costs of energy; the increasing labour costs; or our inability to compete on the quality of our products, we've fallen back to our exports being mostly resource-based rather than manufactured goods. That has always been a death knell for local industry going back to when cheap American grain destroyed the native British grain industry notwithstanding the Corn Laws. 

Trudeau is the last in a long line of politicians incapable of dealing with a changing world. My guess is that he is not challenging China simply because China could lash out economically against Canada much more harshly than we could lash back. If we wish to cement our much more critical relationship with the US then we definitely need to do so. Baring Huawei is critical to that. I presume we haven't so far because the large telecoms are voluntarily staying away from them probably under some backroom pressure. It's a signal we need to send, however.

More importantly, we need to be super careful with our Green Energy programs. At the moment they are part of a Pollyanna day dream that will do nothing but lead to even higher energy costs which will cripple the few manufacturing industries we have left. If we want to lessen our dependency on fossil fuels we desperately need cheap electrical energy and I can't see beyond SMRs for that currently. They should be a government priority together with a sound plan for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel. If we want to have any possibility of reclaiming our manufacturing sector then that is a route we need to go.

🍻


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> I remember a time growing up as a young boy in Toronto in the 60s when southern Ontario was the heart of Canada's manufacturing industry fueled by cheap hydroelectric power and local steel production. The country was a storehouse of raw materials. Any imports from China or Japan were in the cheap toys and trinkets category.
> 
> We've taken our eyes off the ball for a very long time and policy after policy has crippled that industry. Whether its the bundles of red tape which makes it difficult to start up and continue to run a business; the ever increasing costs of energy; the increasing labour costs; or our inability to compete on the quality of our products, we've fallen back to our exports being mostly resource-based rather than manufactured goods. That has always been a death knell for local industry going back to when cheap American grain destroyed the native British grain industry notwithstanding the Corn Laws.
> 
> ...


The calculus is more nuanced on this front I believe. We need more trade options than the USA. The USA goes through protectionist periods and this leave Canada and the Canadian economy at the whim of the political winds of our neighbour. We have done as much as we can, realistically, to diversify our exports, with CETA in Europe and CPTPP in Asia, but that is just tinkering around the edges. The reality is that with 75 percent of our exports going to the USA, cutting trade with China leaves us more reliant on the USA, which has been less of a partner and more of a adversary on the trade front in the past 2 decades.

With so much of our trade going to the USA, they have us over a barrel, and I think they know it. Two American presidents in a row have been more than willing to toss Canada under the bus if they see the a political advantage in doing so, and there is little we can do about it. We are so integrated into the American automobile market that its inconceivable that we export to other countries if the Americans cut us out of their market, and far more conceivable that the Canadian auto industry dies. We are so tied into the American energy market that its inconceivable that we export oil and gas elsewhere, or electricity elsewhere and far more conceivable that our energy resources stay locked within Canada.

The only way to break this cycle of being more and more dependent on the American Economy which can backfire spectacularly when the Americans start looking inward is to have other options. CETA  is nice, but fundamentally, didn't move the needle enough. CPTPP is nice, but didn't move the needle enough. Any trade deal with the UK will be nice but wont move the needle enough. The biggest economy out there that can compare to a EU or USA is China. And even that wont move the needle enough, but if Canada increases ties with Europe, the Pacific and China, maybe getting sideswiped by the Americans doesn't hurt quite as badly.


----------



## KevinB (20 Nov 2021)

I think title should have been Visit SHOULD have Delivered Wake Up Call.
  I don't think that JT really understands what is going to be done.


Altair said:


> With so much of our trade going to the USA, they have us over a barrel, and I think they know it. Two American presidents in a row have been more than willing to toss Canada under the bus if they see the a political advantage in doing so, and there is little we can do about it. We are so integrated into the American automobile market that its inconceivable that we export to other countries if the Americans cut us out of their market, and far more conceivable that the Canadian auto industry dies. We are so tied into the American energy market that its inconceivable that we export oil and gas elsewhere, or electricity elsewhere and far more conceivable that our energy resources stay locked within Canada.


Want to know why - when you aren't acting like a good ally - there is not benefit to supporting you like one.



Altair said:


> The only way to break this cycle of being more and more dependent on the American Economy which can backfire spectacularly when the Americans start looking inward is to have other options. CETA  is nice, but fundamentally, didn't move the needle enough. CPTPP is nice, but didn't move the needle enough. Any trade deal with the UK will be nice but wont move the needle enough. The biggest economy out there that can compare to a EU or USA is China. And even that wont move the needle enough, but if Canada increases ties with Europe, the Pacific and China, maybe getting sideswiped by the Americans doesn't hurt quite as badly.


Yes go play with China - see how that works out


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> I think title should have been Visit SHOULD have Delivered Wake Up Call.
> I don't think that JT really understands what is going to be done.
> 
> Want to know why - when you aren't acting like a good ally - there is not benefit to supporting you like one.


Except the Americans are doing the exact same thing to Mexico, who has been nothing but helpful in many respects. This is less about Canada and more about Americans looking out of number 1.


KevinB said:


> Yes go play with China - see how that works out


Its unsavory but at the end of the day, America isn't a reliable partner with shared goals. And having 75 percent of your exports going to a unreliable partner that has no qualms about wrecking entire sectors of you economy means you need to diversify. Canada has a trade deal every top 10 economy on the planet other than Brazil, Russia, India and China. If that's not diversification I don't know what is.

More importantly, who else is left? Africa is a mess, and doing a bunch of bilateral deals there will take more time than it's worth, and any bilateral deal may be ripped up once a coup happens. A good chunk of south America is covered under the CPTPP. Europe is covered by CETA. Russia is a mirror image of the Canadian economy, energy exporter, no great value there. Brazil would be nice, but wouldn't move the needle and Bolsanaro is as protectionist as Trump was. India would be nice, but wouldn't move the needle right now. Maybe in the coming decades.

That leaves China.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> The calculus is more nuanced on this front I believe. We need more trade options than the USA. The USA goes through protectionist periods and this leave Canada and the Canadian economy at the whim of the political winds of our neighbour. We have done as much as we can, realistically, to diversify our exports, with CETA in Europe and CPTPP in Asia, but that is just tinkering around the edges. The reality is that with 75 percent of our exports going to the USA, cutting trade with China leaves us more reliant on the USA, which has been less of a partner and more of a adversary on the trade front in the past 2 decades.
> 
> With so much of our trade going to the USA, they have us over a barrel, and I think they know it. Two American presidents in a row have been more than willing to toss Canada under the bus if they see the a political advantage in doing so, and there is little we can do about it. We are so integrated into the American automobile market that its inconceivable that we export to other countries if the Americans cut us out of their market, and far more conceivable that the Canadian auto industry dies. We are so tied into the American energy market that its inconceivable that we export oil and gas elsewhere, or electricity elsewhere and far more conceivable that our energy resources stay locked within Canada.
> 
> The only way to break this cycle of being more and more dependent on the American Economy which can backfire spectacularly when the Americans start looking inward is to have other options. CETA  is nice, but fundamentally, didn't move the needle enough. CPTPP is nice, but didn't move the needle enough. Any trade deal with the UK will be nice but wont move the needle enough. The biggest economy out there that can compare to a EU or USA is China. And even that wont move the needle enough, but if Canada increases ties with Europe, the Pacific and China, maybe getting sideswiped by the Americans doesn't hurt quite as badly.



Spoken like a true Liberal Party shill.  I will give you credence you are consistent.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Spoken like a true Liberal Party shill.  I will give you credence you are consistent.


Okay, lets do it this way. 

America is going through a protectionist period. It happens. 

Canada needs to diversify its economy, so that it's not as badly hurt when America goes through these protectionist periods. Who, pray tell, would you focus on increasing exports to, and how would you do it?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2021)

Not much point pursuing oil and gas exports if so many people are so determined to shut down exploration and exploitation.

Exporting electricity "elsewhere" than the US doesn't make any practical sense whatsoever.

What Canada could do is export LNG to places where electricity is generated by thermal generation plants, and move oil around the country so that we don't import any of it from anywhere else.  We'd make a dent in worldwide emissions, but we'd have to give up some ground on capping our own emissions.  Well, that's politically unacceptable.  The estimate has been situated, and moronism wins.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> Okay, lets do it this way.
> 
> America is going through a protectionist period. It happens.
> 
> Canada needs to diversify its economy, so that it's not as badly hurt when America goes through these protectionist periods. Who, pray tell, would you focus on increasing exports to, and how would you do it?



Im not an economist.  But trading more with China seems like a bad political move.  I would go with the EU and the USA.  How about Brazil ?


----------



## YZT580 (20 Nov 2021)

It will hurt for a short while but we need to mimic the US and actively support home-grown.  Even our canned fruits and vegetables come from off-shore.  Cancel the carbon tax on electrical generation, stop wasting money on energy subsidy and insist that the reduction in costs be reflected in the wholesale market price.  Ban any product from off-shore that can be attributed to forced labour.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Im not an economist.  But trading more with China seems like a bad political move.  I would go with the EU and the USA.  How about Brazil ?


We have a deal with the EU already, CETA. Any increase in exports will come from that deal, we cannot force private enterprise to just "trade more" with the EU. Unless you want a planned economy that is.

Our dependence on trade with the USA is a problem when Americans get protectionist. Increasing trade with the Americans only for them to be fine with completely shutting out our industries will exacerbate the issue.

Brazil would be nice, but their economy is the size of Canadas more or less. It wont move the needle that much. Also, Bolsonaro isn't exactly one for bilateral agreements.

That leaves Russia, China and India.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

YZT580 said:


> It will hurt for a short while but we need to mimic the US and actively support home-grown.  Even our canned fruits and vegetables come from off-shore.  Cancel the carbon tax on electrical generation, stop wasting money on energy subsidy and insist that the reduction in costs be reflected in the wholesale market price.  Ban any product from off-shore that can be attributed to forced labour.


Canada isn't the best place to grow oranges. 

and cutting trade that do forces labour like China means more stuff sourced from places like Vietnam. That industry isn't coming home. Meanwhile there is a large market for our exports that suddenly hates us more, making it harder to push diversification from the American economy. Vietnam isn't buying our stuff, I can assure you that.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> We have a deal with the EU already, CETA. Any increase in exports will come from that deal, we cannot force private enterprise to just "trade more" with the EU. Unless you want a planned economy that is.
> 
> Our dependence on trade with the USA is a problem when Americans get protectionist. Increasing trade with the Americans only for them to be fine with completely shutting out our industries will exacerbate the issue.
> 
> ...



I wonder if the USA would be less protectionist with us in trade if we pulled our weight on things like continental defense ? 

Only a Liberal would want more trade with Russia and China.  India, sure.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I wonder if the USA would be less protectionist with us in trade if we pulled our weight on things like continental defense ?


Do you think the average rust belt voter who wants auto jobs back will care if Canada did more for NORAD?

I doubt it. Yet these are the voters that Biden and Trump were trying to win over.

America under Trump hit everyone and their mother with tariffs on steel and aluminum. Biden is appeasing the auto industry and union jobs by throwing Mexico and Canada under the bus. If these were targeted at Canada specifically I would agree with you, but its seems to be done with no regard as to who it hurts.


Halifax Tar said:


> Only a Liberal would want more trade with Russia and China.  India, sure.


Well, we can continue to be dependent of the whims of the American political class. Seems foolish to just go into recession every time American feels like going through a America first stage, but hey, at least we aren't selling shit to China.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Not much point pursuing oil and gas exports if so many people are so determined to shut down exploration and exploitation.
> 
> Exporting electricity "elsewhere" than the US doesn't make any practical sense whatsoever.
> 
> What Canada could do is export LNG to places where electricity is generated by thermal generation plants, and move oil around the country so that we don't import any of it from anywhere else.  We'd make a dent in worldwide emissions, but we'd have to give up some ground on capping our own emissions.  Well, that's politically unacceptable.  The estimate has been situated, and moronism wins.


Good job, you saved the energy industry. What do we do about cars and car parts, planes and plane parts, food products, raw materials, pharmaceuticals?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2021)

Oh, the old if-you-can-only-do-one-thing-you-shouldn't-do-anything ploy.  FFS.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Nov 2021)

We're slipping economically, especially in contrast to the US, and they can smell weakness:


Economic freedom on the wane across Canada Nov. 16, 2021 For Immediate Release

CALGARY—Canadian provinces once again lag behind U.S. states in economic freedom, finds a new report released today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan, public policy think-tank. Economic freedom—the ability of individuals to make their own economic decisions about what to buy, where to work and whether to start a business—remains fundamental to prosperity.

“Higher levels of economic freedom lead to more opportunity, more prosperity, greater economic growth, more investment and more jobs for Canadians,” said Fred McMahon, the Dr. Michael A. Walker Research Chair in Economic Freedom at the Fraser Institute and co-author of this year’s Economic Freedom of North America report, which measures government spending, taxation and labour market restrictions using data from 2019 (the latest year of available comparable data).

After seven straight years atop the rankings—which include the 50 U.S. states, 32 Mexican states and 10 Canadian provinces—Alberta fell from top spot three years ago and this year tied for 33rd place. “While Alberta saw a change in government in 2019 and has made some progress in changing the course of policy, much remains to be done to once again make the province the most economically-free jurisdiction in North America,” McMahon said.

British Columbia is the second-highest ranked province (47 th) followed by Ontario (52nd), Saskatchewan (54th), Manitoba (55 th) and Quebec (56 th). The four Atlantic provinces—New Brunswick (57th), Nova Scotia (58th), Newfoundland and Labrador (59th) and Prince Edward Island (60th)—have the lowest levels of economic freedom among all provinces and U.S. states, only outranking the Mexican states. New Hampshire retained its top spot in the rankings again this year. “As economic freedom wanes across Canada, the economic prospects also diminish for Canadians and their families,” McMahon said.









						Economic Freedom of North America 2021
					






					www.fraserinstitute.org


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Oh, the old if-you-can-only-do-one-thing-you-shouldn't-do-anything ploy.  FFS.


I'm asking you a simple question. If the Americans are less than helpful and have decided on protectionism as their path, where do you suggest Canadian exports should go where they are not already?

We have Europe covered, the pacific is covered, that leaves Brazil, Russia, India and China as the top markets not covered by a trade deal. Where do we send our cars and car parts, planes and plane parts, food products, raw materials, pharmaceuticals?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2021)

> What to Know
> _Sealioning_ is a harassment tactic by which a participant in a debate or online discussion pesters the other participant with disingenuous questions under the guise of sincerity, hoping to erode the patience or goodwill of the target to the point where they appear unreasonable. Often, sealioning involved asking for evidence for even basic claims. The term comes from a web comic depicting a sea lion engaging in such behavior.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2021)

Canada does protectionism, too.  Perhaps some of it can be negotiated away on both sides.  We should unilaterally drop our own protectionism regardless.  As for the rest, let exporters manage their own businesses.


----------



## FJAG (20 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> ... We need more trade options than the USA. ...


Actually I wasn't addressing trade options as much as I was addressing a need to become self sufficient in the manufacturing sector. I see achieving that that by initially making it easier for the manufacturing sector to thrive through cheaper energy and unbundling barriers to industry. Current green energy policies and over regulation and taxation of virtually every industry makes that difficult.

If we can get back into manufacturing quality goods at reasonable prices so that our own population prefers them to outside goods then we're ahead of the game. If we need to bolster that with some very specific tariffs to protect fledgling industries then so be it. Right now its virtually impossible to find anything in my household that isn't manufactured in China. My car has a "J" on its VIN because we don't manufacture that particular model or one of equal quality in Canada. Yup. I'm part of the problem that a good leadership needs to work at fixing. 

If we can win over the country with good domestically produced products then we're half way there and trade will follow naturally. The trouble is that we've lost the ability to be competitive. Displacing China as a trading partner with the US or the EU is a fool's game. They're all equally unreliable and eventually will throw us under the bus. The global economy only works well as long as there is reasonable cooperation amongst nations and cooperation within a game of cut throat economic competition is in short supply.  

Normally I'm a fan of free enterprise but things need to change. For much of the last century we had a relatively even trade balance which became a surplus in the 1990s until about 2009 when we fell into a deficit. The trouble is that trade is still a very large component of our GDP and our economy would have a rough time without it even when its in a deficit situation.

Its not an easy problem to solve and lord knows that governments with their ham fisted ways are probably the bluntest tool that we have. That said, things need to change.

🍻


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Nov 2021)

Neither surplus nor deficit of BoT is completely good or bad.

Pros and Cons of Trade Deficit.

When reading the list of disadvantages bear in mind Canada is not a developing country, most service jobs are not easily outsourced, foreign investment builds Canada as well as domestic investment, and countries with owners with large holdings in Canada in principle will be less willing to pick fights.


----------



## RangerRay (20 Nov 2021)

Running to China because the US is an unreliable trade partner is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire. China would be reliable so long as we kowtowed to them and chucked our liberal democratic values out the window, which we do too much of nowadays anyways. 

We should be expanding trade with other Pacific Rim power houses like Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan and Australia. China can get bent.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

RangerRay said:


> Running to China because the US is an unreliable trade partner is like jumping from the frying pan to the fire. China would be reliable so long as we kowtowed to them and chucked our liberal democratic values out the window, which we do too much of nowadays anyways.
> 
> We should be expanding trade with other Pacific Rim power houses like Japan, South Korea, India, Taiwan and Australia. China can get bent.


CPTPP members.

Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Taiwan would be nice, South Korea would be nice, but I don't foresee increased trade with them being able to offset any potential trade disruptions with the USA. Every little bit helps though, so Canada definitely should be exploring increased ties with South Korea, India and Taiwan, but the only economy with the potential to really move the needle in terms of export dependency is China. 

Could China absolutely disrupt the Canadian economy like they are trying to do with Australia? Yes. But we have the Americans trying to do the same thing, so it almost doesn't matter.


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> ... trading more with China seems like a bad political move ...


Not so much when you consider (as some way smarter than me have said) how addicted many, many people are to relatively cheap "made in China" products.  People complain about high prices now - how many are willing to pay more?  Maybe significantly more?  I'm not a China fan by any means, but this IS a factor to consider.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Nov 2021)

Stolen from Steven Colbert 

Seriously though we have options against China, coal is one of them. I'm China goal prices have gone through the roof because they stopped buying it from Australia, if we blocked thermal coal to China, the domestic pressure would be huge, and the impact on the Chinese economy would be great as well


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Nov 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Seriously though we have options against China, coal is one of them. I'm China goal prices have gone through the roof because they stopped buying it from Australia, if we blocked thermal coal to China, the domestic pressure would be huge, and the impact on the Chinese economy would be great as well


But we won’t, and we’ll also give in to Huawei, because the PM is beholden to a communist dictator.  That some think that cozying up to a communist dictatorial regime is a better plan than resolving some issues we have with our largest trading partner proves how much some people are beguiled by hollow words and the occasional tear or two.


----------



## Altair (20 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> But we won’t, and we’ll also give in to Huawei, because the PM is beholden to a communist dictator.  That some think that cozying up to a communist dictatorial regime is a better plan than resolving some issues we have with our largest trading partner proves how much some people are beguiled by hollow words and the occasional tear or two.


It's cute that you think Canada can get Americans to change course.

We just finished renegotiating NAFTA with them, only for them to decide to lock us out of their electrical vehicle market.

Naive.


----------



## lenaitch (20 Nov 2021)

The Bread Guy said:


> Not so much when you consider (as some way smarter than me have said) how addicted many, many people are to relatively cheap "made in China" products.  People complain about high prices now - how many are willing to pay more?  Maybe significantly more?  I'm not a China fan by any means, but this IS a factor to consider.



I remember reading somewhere a while back what a typical smartphone would cost if is was built in NA with our labour and input costs.  I forget the figure but it paled the cost of the latest-at-the-time Iphone by a significant margin.  Regardless of source, people seem to need to latest and great, and when you only keep stuff for a year or two, cheap wins.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Nov 2021)

FJAG said:


> I remember a time growing up as a young boy in Toronto in the 60s when southern Ontario was the heart of Canada's manufacturing industry fueled by cheap hydroelectric power and local steel production. The country was a storehouse of raw materials. Any imports from China or Japan were in the cheap toys and trinkets category.
> 
> We've taken our eyes off the ball for a very long time and policy after policy has crippled that industry. Whether its the bundles of red tape which makes it difficult to start up and continue to run a business; the ever increasing costs of energy; the increasing labour costs; or our inability to compete on the quality of our products, we've fallen back to our exports being mostly resource-based rather than manufactured goods. That has always been a death knell for local industry going back to when cheap American grain destroyed the native British grain industry notwithstanding the Corn Laws.
> 
> ...


GE - DeLaval - Outboard Marine - Fisher Gauge - Westclox - Johnson & Johnson - Quaker  

All major factories in Peterborough when we arrived in 1966.  All gone except Quaker Oats.

The took with them Dominion, KMart, Zellers, Sears, Eatons, Simpson-Sears.  And a whole bunch of bars, dairies and churches.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> Good job, you saved the energy industry. What do we do about cars and car parts, planes and plane parts, food products, raw materials, pharmaceuticals?



As much as Alberta (And NE BC - the dry bit, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) complains about revenue sharing from the sale of their energy resources wouldn't you rather have some revenues to squabble over?   Money doesn't buy happiness but it lack seems to generate a lot of misery.


----------



## MilEME09 (20 Nov 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> As much as Alberta (And NE BC - the dry bit, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) complains about revenue sharing from the sale of their energy resources wouldn't you rather have some revenues to squabble over?   Money doesn't buy happiness but it lack seems to generate a lot of misery.


We don't even own most of the resources any more, much is owned by foreign companies, both friendly and not so friendly. Who then refine, manufacture and sell the finished goods back to us.


----------



## YZT580 (21 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> Canada isn't the best place to grow oranges.
> 
> and cutting trade that do forces labour like China means more stuff sourced from places like Vietnam. That industry isn't coming home. Meanwhile there is a large market for our exports that suddenly hates us more, making it harder to push diversification from the American economy. Vietnam isn't buying our stuff, I can assure you that.


no but we grow peaches, apples, cherries, plums and most of the other soft fruit.  Canned soft fruit that can be grown and is grown here comes from Mexico and China.  There are no canneries east of the Rockies.  I have no idea whether they exist in BC though.  The price from Viet Nam will be such that with decent energy costs a Canadian company can compete.  We may not be shipping as much stateside but they are still buying a hell of a lot more than the Chinese are.  They are strictly a 'take' nation.


----------



## Altair (21 Nov 2021)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asean-trade-analysis-1.6254749
		


Seems like Trudeau reads the comments here.


----------



## Haggis (21 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asean-trade-analysis-1.6254749
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like Trudeau reads the comments here.


Maybe not personally, but he has people that do.

As a glaring example, look at the May 1st, 2020 gun ban by OIC and Bill C-21 from the last Parliament.  Every potential loophole discussed on social media pages was closed by the OIC and C-21.  Every opposing talking point mentioned in pro-gun groups was addressed in the accompanying announcements.  It's almost like we (the firearms community) wrote the OIC and C-21 for him.

We know he governs based on public opinion. And it would be disingenuous to think his staff don't cull forums like this for ideas on what opposition to his policies might look like.


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Nov 2021)

Haggis said:


> Maybe not personally, but he has people that do.
> 
> As a glaring example, look at the May 1st, 2020 gun ban by OIC and Bill C-21 from the last Parliament.  Every potential loophole discussed on social media pages was closed by the OIC and C-21.  Every opposing talking point mentioned in pro-gun groups was addressed in the accompanying announcements.  It's almost like we (the firearms community) wrote the OIC and C-21 for him.
> 
> We know he governs based on public opinion. And it would be disingenuous to think his staff don't cull forums like this for ideas on what opposition to his policies might look like.



I think with firearms he's not governing based on public opinion, he's controling the narrative to steer the public in the way he wants so he can be seen to be governing to public opinion.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Nov 2021)

Altair said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/asean-trade-analysis-1.6254749
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like Trudeau reads the comments here.



'Southeast Asia'. Depending on how you scope it out that covers about a billion people in dozens of different countries.

That reminds me of a Henry Kissinger comment that went something like "If I want to talk to Europe who do I call?"

We'll need 10 years to do a really good job at that starting with getting our energy and other raw materials, which is the key thing that Asian customers want from us, to tidewater reliably and cheaply.

Meanwhile our crappy, fragile industrial/supply chain infrastructure on the West Coast was recently wiped out by a heavy rainstorm similar to the monsoons that Asians deal with every year during monsoon season.


----------



## Altair (21 Nov 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> 'Southeast Asia'. Depending on how you scope it out that covers about a billion people in dozens of different countries.
> 
> That reminds me of a Henry Kissinger comment that went something like "If I want to talk to Europe who do I call?"
> 
> ...


The Association of Southeast Asian Nations 

Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Some of those nations are already in CPTPP so it might not be hard of a deal to get a CPTPP like deal with ASEAN


----------



## Haggis (21 Nov 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> I think with firearms he's not governing based on public opinion, he's controling the narrative to steer the public in the way he wants so he can be seen to be governing to public opinion.


On the firearms file, he governing from ideology.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Nov 2021)

Another example of Trudeau shooting himself in both our feet. 

It's astonishing, and irresponsible, that he would say something like that right after Biden kicked him/ us in the metaphorical junk....



U.S. admiral warns of China threat and urges allies to work and train more closely​Admiral John Aquilino says U.S. allies should move more urgently in face of evolving military situation​
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said Canada has no plans to acquire nuclear submarines of its own and dismissed the deal involving the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom as only being about selling defence hardware.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/indo-pacific-aquilino-warning-1.6257200?ref=mobilerss&cmp=newsletter_CBC%20News%20Top%20Headlines%20%20%E2%80%93%20Evening_1617_336794


----------



## Halifax Tar (21 Nov 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Another example of Trudeau shooting himself in both our feet.
> 
> It's astonishing, and irresponsible, that he would say something like that right after Biden kicked him/ us in the metaphorical junk....
> 
> ...



He's not wrong...


----------



## QV (21 Nov 2021)

Haggis said:


> Maybe not personally, but he has people that do.


Altair.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2021)

Brad Sallows said:


> Canada does protectionism, too.  Perhaps some of it can be negotiated away on both sides.  We should unilaterally drop our own protectionism regardless.  As for the rest, let exporters manage their own businesses.



Good heavens, no we don't!

Oh, wait, what's this? From 2018....

Why Donald Trump Is Absolutely Obsessed With Canadian Dairy Protectionism​
Many in Canada complain that the system, which dates back to the 1970s, is an anachronism that lets the country’s shrinking number of dairy farmers profit on the backs of everyday families. Canadians pay far more for their milk than Americans, and the policy is especially burdensome for the poor; one recent estimate suggested, for instance, that lower-income households end up spending an extra $339 a year for groceries due to supply management. But the policy has survived because Canada’s 11,000 dairy farmers are a powerful interest group overwhelmingly located in the politically influential provinces of Quebec, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is from, and Ontario. The issue is so sensitive that Canadian dairy and poultry were entirely exempted from the North American Free Trade Agreement’s tariff reductions. As the _Toronto Star’s_ editorial board put it last year: “The folly of our continued commitment to supply management is widely accepted in policy circles, yet it persists in part because risk-averse politicians fear the purportedly powerful dairy farmers lobby.”









						Why Donald Trump Is Absolutely Obsessed With Canadian Dairy Protectionism
					

And what that tells us about his approach to trade.




					slate.com


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> But we won’t, and we’ll also give in to Huawei, because the PM is beholden to a communist dictator.  That some think that cozying up to a communist dictatorial regime is a better plan than resolving some issues we have with our largest trading partner proves how much some people are beguiled by hollow words and the occasional tear or two.


While our relationship may not be perfect - we have far far far more in common with the US than we do with China.  

Plus our collective North American culture, geography, families with members in both countries, etc - we should focus on repairing what can be repaired more than anything else.  


_Question for whoever feels like sharing their opinion_ - the part about our PM being beholden to a communist dictator… why does it seem that way?  

(I, for one, agree that he seems to bend to China far too easily and far too often.  I understood not wanting to put his foot down too hard due to the ‘2 Michaels’ saga, and didn’t want to rock the boat until they were released.  But now?  🤨🤷🏼‍♂️)


----------



## Weinie (22 Nov 2021)

CBH99 said:


> While our relationship may not be perfect - we have far far far more in common with the US than we do with China.
> 
> Plus our collective North American culture, geography, families with members in both countries, etc - we should focus on repairing what can be repaired more than anything else.
> 
> ...


Follow the money. Look at how many former high ranking Liberals (Chretien, Manley) etc are serving on Chinese boards and advisory committees. Look at the Desmarais family and Power Corp. Coincidence?


----------



## Haggis (22 Nov 2021)

CBH99 said:


> (I, for one, agree that he seems to bend to China far too easily and far too often.  I understood not wanting to put his foot down too hard due to the ‘2 Michaels’ saga, and didn’t want to rock the boat until they were released.  But now?  🤨🤷🏼‍♂️)


There are dozens if not hundreds of "Michaels-in-waiting" still in China to be used as influencers in the future.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2021)

Weinie said:


> Follow the money. Look at how many former high ranking Liberals (Chretien, Manley) etc are serving on Chinese boards and advisory committees. Look at the Desmarais family and Power Corp. Coincidence?


I’ve got some interesting digging to do today.  Thanks for those leads, I wouldn’t have even known to where to start when it comes to those.




Haggis said:


> There are dozens if not hundreds of "Michaels-in-waiting" still in China to be used as influencers in the future.


I was quite surprised when I heard how many Canadians are in prison in China.  

If an ex-diplomat can be snatched up and held for that long, and provided with minimal access to consular services even under such global public media scrutiny - any Canadian there can be fair game.   

I sure as heck wouldn’t risk it.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2021)

Haggis said:


> There are dozens if not hundreds of "Michaels-in-waiting" still in China to be used as influencers in the future.


THIS!  Absolutely this!

When has the United States ever indiscriminately incarcerated Canadian citizens on trumped up charges in such blatantly transactional human hostage taking?

Anyone who truly thinks that China would be a measurably better trading partner than the US is either willfully ignorant of reality, or incredibly naive and sadly influenced by a cult of personality of the current PM…the very one who respects controlling aspects of a dictatorship.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I’ve got some interesting digging to do today.  Thanks for those leads, I wouldn’t have even known to where to start when it comes to those.


As @Weinie notes, absolutely take a look at the Power Corporation of Canada.

If you ever wonder where the Laurentian Elites keep their wealth, look no further.

Oh look, there’s a little box down in the lower right corner…China AMC.


Power Corp owns directly and indirectly (through IGM) 27.8% of China AMC.  Let’s see…$245BILLION x 27.8% = $68.1 BILLION.

So….the Laurentians and friends in PCC have at least $68,000,000,000 of ownership of Chinese asset management in China.

Anybody wonder why Trudeau and Chretien and the Demarais family (one of whom is Chrietien’s son-in-law) and others are so beholden to China?  @Weinie and others were indeed correct…follow the money…

G2G

ps. Attached Power Corp’s 2020 Annual Report for those interested in getting more insight to the flow of wealth affecting Canada and China…


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2021)

First, Altair is quite right: we should diversify our trade; we should have diversified our trade 50 years ago when Mitchell Sharp suggested the "Third Option." But, for a whole host of reasons ~ one of the big ones being the influence that some corporations have on public policy ~ we didn't manage to do the right thing; and when, now and again, we did try, we didn't do things right.

Second, speaking of the influence that some corporations have on public policy, Weenie and G2G are right, too: Power Corporation and the Desmarais family are too powerful, too influential; too controlling. It's great that they are a successful company with global reach but when you have a government of bantamweights led by a featherweight then a heavyweight champion corporation exerts too much influence.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> First, Altair is quite right: we should diversify our trade; we should have diversified our trade 50 years ago when Mitchell Sharp suggested the "Third Option." But, for a whole host of reasons ~ one of the big ones being the influence that some corporations have on public policy ~ we didn't manage to do the right thing; and when, now and again, we did try, we didn't do things right.
> 
> Second, speaking of the influence that some corporations have on public policy, Weenie and G2G are right, too: Power Corporation and the Desmarais family are too powerful, too influential; too controlling. It's great that they are a successful company with global reach but when you have a government of bantamweights led by a featherweight then a heavyweight champion corporation exerts too much influence.


Regardless of whether I agree with your positions or not (in this case, neither, as I don’t know enough to have an informed opinion) - they are always elegantly put, and  I always enjoy reading them.  

🥂


----------



## QV (22 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> As @Weinie notes, absolutely take a look at the Power Corporation of Canada.
> 
> If you ever wonder where the Laurentian Elites keep their wealth, look no further.
> 
> ...



These are clearly conflicts of interest that should bar these people, and anyone connected to them, from holding office and obtaining security clearances.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2021)

While tempting, I try to not infer that technically legal actions are similarly ethical.  PPC is an audited company, and I have not seen evidence of its executive officers/staff doing anything illegal.  That doesn’t mean I have to like how it or it’s many shareholders make money from such significant dealings with China. Not like, say, SNC Lavelin, where the conduct of some of its executives were on the public record as breaking numerous Canadian and international laws.


----------



## Weinie (22 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> While tempting,* I try to not infer that technically legal actions are similarly ethical.*  PPC is an audited company, and I have not seen evidence of its executive officers/staff doing anything illegal.  That doesn’t mean I have to like how it or it’s many shareholders make money from such significant dealings with China. Not like, say, SNC Lavelin, where the conduct of some of its executives were on the public record as breaking numerous Canadian and international laws.


It is amazing what greed will do to some people, including acting in their own interests; Canadians be dammed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2021)

QV said:


> These are clearly conflicts of interest that should bar these people, and anyone connected to them, from holding office and obtaining security clearances.



In my opinion there would be nothing wrong with any of them running for office; being rich and/or successful and so on ought not to bar one from serving her or his country ~ even if the makeup of the current House of Commons and most provincial legislatures and city councils suggests otherwise. Ditto for a security clearance if a very rich person with bags of top-level experience in International trade and commerce applies for a job with the government.

What is problematical, for me, is the degree to which _I think _that some (actually many) of these smart, successful, rich and powerful people influence government without ever being elected or screened for conflict of interest or anything else.


----------



## QV (22 Nov 2021)

Certain kinds of associations with specific countries should be red flags. There should be laws about this.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2021)

Weinie said:


> Follow the money. Look at how many former high ranking Liberals (Chretien, Manley) etc are serving on Chinese boards and advisory committees. Look at the Desmarais family and Power Corp. Coincidence?



Look at Maurice Strong (UN, China, Global Warming, Power, Trudeau, PetroFina, Dome Petroleum, Oil-for-Food Scandal, ROWPU.









						Maurice Strong - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> What is problematical, for me, is the degree to which _I think _that some (actually many) of these smart, successful, rich and powerful people influence government without ever being elected or screened for conflict of interest or anything else.


This. 👍🏼 

We see enough influence south of the border, but that is more direct to Senators and Congresspeople, but they’re elected and are at least held to account by the electorate.  Canada has a level of back-room influence or likely more accurately described, manipulation, that sees personal or group interests championed outside of accountability to the citizens.  

$0.02

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> In my opinion there would be nothing wrong with any of them running for office; being rich and/or successful and so on ought not to bar one from serving her or his country ~ even if the makeup of the current House of Commons and most provincial legislatures and city councils suggests otherwise. Ditto for a security clearance if a very rich person with bags of top-level experience in International trade and commerce applies for a job with the government.
> 
> What is problematical, for me, is the degree to which _I think _that some (actually many) of these smart, successful, rich and powerful people influence government without ever being elected or screened for conflict of interest or anything else.



The only problem, Ted, is that the French Revolution taught the lesson of the Tall Poppies.  Better to stay out of sight and let others take the flak.  It worked for Walpole and the British Prime Ministers - everybody focused on the Hanoverians while the Whigs ran the country.

Now people focus on Presidents and Prime Ministers and other elected officials while ....???


----------



## KevinB (22 Nov 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> The only problem, Ted, is that the French Revolution taught the lesson of the Tall Poppies.  Better to stay out of sight and let others take the flak.  It worked for Walpole and the British Prime Ministers - everybody focused on the Hanoverians while the Whigs ran the country.
> 
> Now people focus on Presidents and Prime Ministers and other elected officials while ....???


Which goes to show that the current state of Western Democracy isn't nearly as transparent as a lot of people like to believe.

Down here there has been a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of Presidential Executive Orders (hint there is no codified authority for them to make an Order).    What codification in Canadian laws are there for the PMO's office to be directing policy?


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Nov 2021)

KevinB said:


> Which goes to show that the current state of Western Democracy isn't nearly as transparent as a lot of people like to believe.
> 
> Down here there has been a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of Presidential Executive Orders (hint there is no codified authority for them to make an Order).    What codification in Canadian laws are there for the PMO's office to be directing policy?



Although legislation references the office of Prime Minister there is no, to my knowledge, law vesting any authority at all in the Prime Minister.  The powers of the office are the powers the office has grabbed (acquired) over the years, and continues to grab.  The only real check on the PM is a rebellion by his sitting members.  But even that has been whittled down because the PM is now as much a creature of the Party (and its donors) outside Parliament as a creature of the Parliamentary Party.  That same outside party also controls the funds that support the other sitting members.

Short form?  The PMO can pretty much do what they like - so long as they don't break any laws (like interfering in court cases).




			How Canadians Govern Themselves
		




> The Prime Minister​
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			How Canadians Govern Themselves


----------



## suffolkowner (22 Nov 2021)

It's just too easy to conduct trade with the US; same language, culture, customs, legal system, time zones, family, distance , especially since the free trade agreement.

Dealing with other countries requires lots more work. We have many immigrants from India, Pakistan, China, the Philipines, which should help open up those markets but I bet they prefer to deal with America too.

Companies serve their own interests and while it may be in the country's interest to diversify trade it may be difficult to get individual companies to follow no matter how much the government pushes via trade delegations and guarantees


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Nov 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Although legislation references the office of Prime Minister there is no, to my knowledge, law vesting any authority at all in the Prime Minister.  The powers of the office are the powers the office has grabbed (acquired) over the years, and continues to grab.  The only real check on the PM is a rebellion by his sitting members.  But even that has been whittled down because the PM is now as much a creature of the Party (and its donors) outside Parliament as a creature of the Parliamentary Party.  That same outside party also controls the funds that support the other sitting members.
> 
> Short form?  The PMO can pretty much do what they like - so long as they don't break any laws (like interfering in court cases).
> 
> ...


Which just goes to show how silly our Constitution is. Canadians love their Charter and they love to talk about it, but it is a constitutional triviality. The ONLY important parts of the entire bloody document are Part VI, which delineate the powers of the national and the provincial legislatures and the Preamble which says "_*WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom*_."

The bit I have underlined is what matters because what is says is that almost (not quite) every word in most of the sections and in ALL of the Charter are meaningless because the Constitution of the United Kingdom is ...
.
.
.
... right, go ahead, tell me what the Constitution of the United Kingdom is and what it says says ...
.
.
.
.
... I'll wait ...
.
.
.
.

There are also hugely important parts missing in the (better than average) US Constitution because concepts like "executive power" either seemed self evident to the authors or were just too damned hard to define in writing. The Australians explicitly acknowledge the "unwritten" elements of their Constitution while the Indians tried to define everything and, after more than 100 amendments, their 70+ year old Constitution  is still being debated.

There is nothing, not a single word, anywhere in the Charter that does not devolve from the Common Law ... even special rights for Quebec are grounded in common law principles regarding the rights of minorities. The entire 1982 exercise was one of vanity and futility.

<rant ends>


----------



## lenaitch (22 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> Which just goes to show how silly our Constitution is. Canadians love their Charter and they love to talk about it, but it is a constitutional triviality. The ONLY important parts of the entire bloody document are Part VI, which delineate the powers of the national and the provincial legislatures and the Preamble which says "_*WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom*_."
> 
> The bit I have underlined is what matters because what is says is that almost (not quite) every word in most of the sections and in ALL of the Charter are meaningless because the Constitution of the United Kingdom is ...
> .
> ...



Not an argument, just an attempt at an answer:









						What is the UK Constitution?
					






					www.ucl.ac.uk
				












						The British constitution explained
					

A short guide to the constitution of the United Kingdom. The British constitution in brief



					about-britain.com
				




There is no document or piece of legislation that other laws are judged against.  The underlying premise is the Sovereignty of Parliament that the courts/Law Lords have historically been unwilling to challenge; Parliament can pretty much pass any law they please provided the Crown agrees (which it always does).  It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - which has only been in place since 2009 - carries this on or takes a more activist role.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Nov 2021)

Edward Campbell said:


> There is nothing, not a single word, anywhere in the Charter that does not devolve from the Common Law ... even special rights for Quebec are grounded in common law principles regarding the rights of minorities. The entire 1982 exercise was one of vanity and futility.


Oh the irony of historical French civil law being supported by extended English common law… 😆


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Nov 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Oh the irony of historical French civil law being supported by extended English common law… 😆



Here's a fairly accurate reenactment about how that all worked out


----------



## Altair (20 Dec 2021)

Good news, for now, Senator from west Virginia is not supporting the bill with the auto credit.


----------



## lenaitch (20 Dec 2021)

Altair said:


> Good news, for now, Senator from west Virginia is not supporting the bill with the auto credit.


And apparently there is another on the bubble.  Hopefully they are not just holding out for more federal gravy to be smothered on their districts, but Machin seems to have a consistently 'principled' position.


----------



## Pelorus (20 Dec 2021)

Principled in that he's consistent in ensuring that the stream of money from billionaires and corporate interests isn't threatened:

Joe Manchin Call With Billionaire Donors Offers Rare Glimpse of Dealmaking 

Joe Manchin, who is holding up crucial climate change initiatives in Biden's reconciliation bill, collects $500,000 a year from coal stocks dividends: report


----------



## Altair (20 Dec 2021)

Pelorus said:


> Principled in that he's consistent in ensuring that the stream of money from billionaires and corporate interests isn't threatened:
> 
> Joe Manchin Call With Billionaire Donors Offers Rare Glimpse of Dealmaking
> 
> Joe Manchin, who is holding up crucial climate change initiatives in Biden's reconciliation bill, collects $500,000 a year from coal stocks dividends: report


Enemy of my enemy is my friend, in this case.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Dec 2021)

Good news, bill (in this version) is dead.  Bad news, Canada's interests have nothing to do with why it's dead.  The underlying principle is that WV isn't very Democratic.  Canada is only "safe" as long as no-one bothers to pull the auto-credit out and attach it to something else (eg. the new year's budget).


----------



## RangerRay (20 Dec 2021)

If Joe Manchin weren’t running again, the Democrats wouldn’t have a hope in hell of holding West Virginia. Those who think an AOC, or even a Connor Lamb, could win there are dreaming in technicolour.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2021)

Canada's 38,000,000 people allow the champions of 5,500,000 of their number to represent their interests in a market of 7,753,000,000 divided among 193 governments of varying degrees of control.

It is easy to do business with the 2,000,000,000 people who speak English (400,000,000 native English speakers and others).

It is easy to do business with the Common Law countries. (The Commonwealth, The US and its possessions, Israel, Ireland)

If business is easy then high volume low value trade will predominate.   Money is made by the low risk skimming of a little from a lot.

If business is difficult then low volume high value trade will predominate.  Money is made by covering many frequent losses with the occasional glorious success.  Smuggling in one form or another.

Montreal Scots don't take risks.  And they run Canada's banks, culturally.   Ultimately that is the source of Canada's economy.

It is silly to say that it is "too easy to do business"  and suggest that we should therefore make it harder to make a little bit of money regularly while chasing other opportunities.   Many of which will fail and most certainly will take a long while to become a sustainable income.

You'll get a better return on your investment by making your American customer happy by addressing their concerns (cheap energy and security) than you will dissing them and trying to find other markets to supply 80% of your income.  Canada is a contract employee of the US.  Enjoy the fact they pay your salary.  Meanwhile start using the other 20% as a basis of growth.  And the Commonwealth is not a bad place to start.

1973.

The UK broke the Commonwealth when it entered the EU.  Australia, Canada and all the other Commonwealth Nations who had built business plans based on marketing through the UK found those plans dead.  In Canada's case it forced Canada to focus on North South trade with the US.  It lost the All Red Line East West trade rationale. 






American SamoaBased on law of the United StatesAntigua and BarbudaBased on English common lawAustraliaBased on English common law.BahamasBased on English common lawBangladeshBased on English common law, with the Muslim family law heavily based on Shariah law.BarbadosBased on English common lawBelizeBased on English common lawBhutanBased on English common law, with an Indian influence. Religious law influences personal law.British Virgin IslandsBased on English common lawCanadaBased on English common law, except in  Quebec, where a civil law system based on French law prevails in most matters of a civil nature, such as obligations (contract and delict), property law, family law, and private matters. Federal statutes take into account the juridical nature of Canada and use both common law and civil law terms where appropriate.Cayman IslandsBased on English common lawCyprusBased on English common law as inherited from British colonization, with civil law influences, particularly in criminal law.DominicaBased on English common law England and Wales
(UK)Primarily common law, with early Roman and some modern continental European influencesFijiBased on English common lawGibraltarBased on English common lawGhanaGrenadaBased on English common lawHong KongPrincipally based on English common lawIndiaBased on English common law, except in Goa, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli which follow a Civil law system based on the Portuguese Civil Law[18]IrelandBased on Irish law before 1922, which was itself based on English common lawIsraelBased on English common law arising from the period of the British Mandate (which includes laws arising from previous Ottoman rule),[19] also incorporating civil law and fragments of Halakha and Sharia for family law casesJamaicaBased on English common lawKiribatiBased on English common lawLiberiaBased on Anglo-American and customary lawMarshall IslandsBased on law of the United StatesMyanmarBased on English common lawNauruBased on English common lawNepalBased on English common lawNew ZealandBased on English common lawNorthern Ireland
(UK)Based on Irish law before 1921, in turn, based on English common lawPalauBased on law of the United StatesPakistan[20]Based on English common law with some provisions of Islamic lawPapua New GuineaBased on English common law and customary laws of its more than 750 different cultural and language groupsSaint Kitts and NevisBased on English common lawSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesBased on English common lawSingaporeBased on English common law, but Muslims are subject to the Administration of Muslim Law Act, which gives the Sharia Court jurisdiction over Muslim personal law, _e.g._, marriage, inheritance and divorce.TongaBased on English common lawTrinidad and TobagoBased on English common lawTuvaluBased on English common lawUgandaBased on English common lawUnited StatesFederal courts and 49 states use the legal system based on English common law, which has diverged somewhat since the mid-nineteenth century in that they look to each other's cases for guidance on issues of the first impression and rarely if ever, look at contemporary cases on the same issue in the UK or the Commonwealth.
Law in the state of Louisiana is based on French and Spanish civil law. Law in the territory of Puerto Rico is based on Spanish civil law.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Jul 2022)

The best thing the world could do is just ignore Red China. We have a number of things to do first. Restart manufacturing and start making goods here. Stuff they have a near monopoly on, computer chips for example. Build a plant and start manufacturing them. Other countries  might follow suit and we can trade amongst each other. I won't  live to see it likely, but I'd like to see the world in a position, to isolate and embargo the ChiComs back to the stone age.


----------

