CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[Kirkhill]

Feeling no necessity to be even handed in debate I will continue to give voice to my preferred advocates:

Conrad Black: Trump bulldozes the leftist nonsense of the last four years

Canada risks getting left behind as the U.S. president fundamentally reshapes global politics

nationalpost.com

Trump is just playing poker. It will not be difficult to negotiate a reasonable compromise on tariffs and there is no difference between Canada and the U.S. on immigration matters. Trump’s jokes about Canada becoming the 51st state were mainly a response to what he considered (with some reason) to be the impertinences of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during his first term as president.

Carney’s Net Zero Banking Alliance and Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, both of whose members pledge to align their lending, investment and other commercial activities with net-zero emission goals, are crumbling. Four of the five large Canadian banks (all but Royal Bank) and six of the largest American banks have announced that they are defecting from those absurd organizations. The starting gun for the abandonment of these battlements appears to have been the U.S. House judiciary committee’s accusation that the imposition of these net-zero policies constitutes a fraud against shareholders and that they have contributed to the rise in energy prices since 2020 through recourse to “anti-competitive collusion.”

Conrad Black knows something about US courts and fraud charges. It is probably harder to prosecute a Canadian PM than a Canadian banker.

....

NP View: Liberals have left Canada vulnerable to Trump's trade war

Retaliatory tariffs must be taken with utmost caution

nationalpost.com

Canada should be a prosperous, growth-oriented economy, but instead, its government — and the people who continuously vote for economy-stagnating policy — settle for subsistence and redistribution of a shrinking pie of wealth. Their choices for the past decade have left us without enough fat to get through a cold trade winter.

Canada can also acknowledge its faults, and work to remedy them. It’s an objective fact that this country has lagged on military spending and been a poor partner within NATO — and that has to change. On the border, while the Canadian problem is minor compared to that of Mexico, it’s still a problem: this country has been a staging ground for Chinese fentanyl and fentanyl precursors, some of which end up in the U.S., as well as a source of illegal migrants, thanks to years of lax entry rules.

It’s true that Trump’s border demands lack specificity — “show us the respect, shut your border,” as his pick for commerce lead has said, isn’t an actionable request. Canada needs a checklist — say, number of smuggler convictions, number of foot patrols, amount of money spent — to properly follow through.

That leaves us, unfortunately, with the less-glamourous immediate option: play this by the book. The United States-Canada-Mexico free trade agreement, which will be violated by any across-the-board tariff Trump applies, needs to be challenged with the mechanisms agreed upon by party states. During the process, Canada must remind Trump that it’s just following the agreement that he made.

....

So, some key elements as far as I am concerned:

Putting pressure on the USCMA is at the heart of the matter - Trump wasn't a big fan of what his team was able to negotiate the last time and he wants a do-over. And he wants it sooner rather than later.

China, China, China substitutes for Location, Location, Location.

De-platforming people and creating safe spaces doesn't prepare people for combat in the lion's den. Thus the tendency to look for others to do your fighting for you.

Canadian foreign affairs minister Mélanie Joly should spend her time trying to obtain one instead of courting Trump’s opponents, who are in no position to help us.

The Center for American Progress and the Podesta Group, John and Tony, are gone. Podesta clients included Obama, Hillary, Biden, Blair, Starmer, Jacinda and Justin, and Viktor Yanukovych.

 

[Rifleman62]

She must have completely missed or chooses to ignore the fact that the 1st pillar of the 5 pillar $1.3 Billion border and immigration plan released last month is all about new measures to tackle fentanyl and fentanyl precursors.

There is zero funds for Border Security. It was not in the last Budget (obviously Trudeau didn't think it important last Apr 2024). This is a new funding requirement (Supply Motion) that needs the approval of Parliament. Guess what, it's prorogued. When the Parliament next sits a month or so from now, there will probably be a Confidence Motion. ​

What money? Not funded.

Canada is investing $1.3 billion to bolster security at the border and strengthen the immigration system, all while keeping Canadians safe. This includes $667.5M for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $355.4M for the Canada Border Services Agency, $180M over 6 years for the Communications Security Establishment, $77.7M for Health Canada, and $20M over five years for Public Safety Canada.

Do you get it? $1.3 Billion over 6 years or less than $217 Million a year. Peanuts in the scheme of things.

 

[daftandbarmy]

There is zero funds for Border Security. It was not in the last Budget (obviously Trudeau didn't think it important last Apr 2024). This is a new funding requirement (Supply Motion) that needs the approval of Parliament. Guess what, it's prorogued. When the Parliament next sits a month or so from now, there will probably be a Confidence Motion. ​

What money? Not funded.

Canada is investing $1.3 billion to bolster security at the border and strengthen the immigration system, all while keeping Canadians safe. This includes $667.5M for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, $355.4M for the Canada Border Services Agency, $180M over 6 years for the Communications Security Establishment, $77.7M for Health Canada, and $20M over five years for Public Safety Canada.

Do you get it? $1.3 Billion over 6 years or less than $217 Million a year. Peanuts in the scheme of things.

 

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile, focus on offsetting anticipated GDP losses with domestic undertakings that will goose GDP. Our politicians have had almost three months to execute on things that would make sense even without the threat of widespread tariffs. Why are they so slow to act? Are they talking "unity in crisis" while they privately wish to maintain status quo if they can get away with it?

As @Good2Golf sez "years and years".

Which is the problem. The country has had years and years to demonstrate to investors whether it is an attractive and safe place to invest. The ability to attract investment is the only sure cure against this kind of attack.

Unfortunately for us decades of havering will not be overturned by any politician saying "I've seen the light!". Especially if the politicians have no access to the treasury because parliament is not in session.

We need new politicians, new policies, new laws and the development of a new track record. There are a lot of Missouri investors out there. Missouri: The Show Me State.

 

[McG]

Follow but one path for consideration:

Chinese interference/illegal activities in Canada > investigations > CSIS > David Vigneault > Striker Technologies > H.R. McMaster > past National Security Advisor to Trump > Trump

Consider the linkages…or don’t. Nicht aufgeregt.

Why do you need Trump’s tariffs to be about Trudeau?

You are dragging things to the tin-foil hat place to keep Trudeau as the cause for Trump’s tariff war vs the world. You have an imagined path an idea could have followed to Trump but nothing to substantiate. That guy has no filter. If he was worried about Chinese influence in Canada, he would have cast such aspersions already (he has done so about Panama).

 

[Good2Golf]

Why do you need Trump’s tariffs to be about Trudeau?

You are dragging things to the tin-foil hat place to keep Trudeau as the cause for Trump’s tariff war vs the world. You have an imagined path an idea could have followed to Trump but nothing to substantiate. That guy has no filter. If he was worried about Chinese influence in Canada, he would have cast such aspersions already (he has done so about Panama).

I’m sorry. Would you like me to adopt your position if it makes you feel better? I thought I was free to have my own opinion. You can agree with any, all or none of it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anybody noticed that Trump has turned into Oprah Winfrey (though, since she is a black woman, she obviously got there because of DEI):

"You get a tariff! And you get a tariff! And you get a tariff! .... Everybody gets a tariff!"

 

[Remius]

Anybody noticed that Trump has turned into Oprah Winfrey (though, since she is a black woman, she obviously got there because of DEI):

"You get a tariff! And you get a tariff! And you get a tariff! .... Everybody gets a tariff!"

He’s an orange man so could also be DEI.

 

[McG]

Anyone can have their opinions, but I don’t see anything defensible in the opinion that Trump’s tarifs are about Trudeau. If someone has something more tangible than imagination that ties Trump’s tariffs to Trudeau as the cause, then persuade me.

But if one cannot defend their opinions, at least recognize those opinions are exposed to legitimate criticisms when aired in a discussion.

 

[Good2Golf]

Anyone can have their opinions, but I don’t see anything defensible in the opinion that Trump’s tarifs are about Trudeau.

His dislike of Trudeau is a personal thing. That’s not at play here, it’s his leadership, or lack thereof, as Canada’s leader.

Canada’s lack of definitive action to protect against Chinese (and a lesser degree India and Russia) adversarial attack on its institutions.

Trudeau should be held accountable for that lack of definitive protective actions, no?

 

[Remius]

Anyone can have their opinions, but I don’t see anything defensible in the opinion that Trump’s tarifs are about Trudeau. If someone has something more tangible than imagination that ties Trump’s tariffs to Trudeau as the cause, then persuade me.

People need a narrative that fits their world view that allows them to keep cheering for Trump.

But if one cannot defend their opinions, at least recognize those opinions are exposed to legitimate criticisms when aired in a discussion.

Absolutely.

 

[McG]

Trudeau should be held accountable for that lack of definitive protective actions, no?

There are a lot of people who should be held accountable. It has nothing to do with Trump’s tariffs. Perhaps we can see common ground here?

 

[brihard]

you reference the Canada Elections Act but are not these provisions already in the Constitution?

Provision​

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

I was under the impression that (2) was a little more permissive on what reasons for an extension and more limited by one year on the extension. A pre Charter thing perhaps?

I cannot speak to pre-charter, but it wouldn’t be applicable anyway. If we have a war, invasion, or insurrection we can revisit it.

The Government had enacted the Emergencies Act for vehicles on Wellington Street, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Government makes the case that POTUS 47 represents an existential threat to Canada and that the Government see fit to enact the EA.

I’m not sure why people don’t think PM Carney would do this.

And which category of emergency enumerated in the Emergencies Act do you suggest would be applicable?

Carney’s not exactly unfamiliar with being in a leadership role through major economic downturns. Suggesting he would somehow usurp our statutorily prescribed election date and stretch government by a year over tariffs is just a weird fantasy. There are people I’d expect that from, but you’re not one of them.

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

 

[Good2Golf]

Anyone can have their opinions, but I don’t see anything defensible in the opinion that Trump’s tarifs are about Trudeau. If someone has something more tangible than imagination that ties Trump’s tariffs to Trudeau as the cause, then persuade me.

People need a narrative that fits their world view that allows them to keep cheering for Trump.

Absolutely.

There are a lot of people who should be held accountable. It has nothing to do with Trump’s tariffs. Perhaps we can see common ground here?

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

Noting that Canada is reaping much of what it sowed through inaction, now at the hands of Trump and his administration, is not the same as espousing that Trump is inappropriately personalizing action against Trudeau.

If you think I’m blindly cheering on Trump, perhaps it best you put me on ignore…

Or…pick apart my thought-piece linkage/path?

Edit to add:

Chinese interference/illegal activities in Canada > investigations > CSIS > David Vigneault > Striker Technologies > H.R. McMaster > past National Security Advisor to Trump > Trump

Refute it. Critique it. Suggest a more insightful linkage path.

Do something other than an ad hominem attack on me as a tin-foil hatter…or don’t…

 

[Remius]

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

Sorry. That wasn’t directed at you specifically. It was in relation to what McG was pointing out.

 

[Good2Golf]

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

I agree fully with you; I was suggesting that this could be a path that PM Carney could take.

The actual threat remains - China and its continued efforts to infiltrate and degrade Canadian institutions. I would like to believe that any responsible Canadian government would take definitive action, which to date, it hasn’t.

Dare I too dream and see Bill C-70 be re-activated and approved when Parliament resumes?

 

[Remius]

I agree fully with you; I was suggesting that this could be a path that PM Carney could take.

The actual threat remains - China and its continued efforts to infiltrate and degrade Canadian institutions. I would like to believe that any responsible Canadian government would take definitive action, which to date, it hasn’t.

Dare I too dream and see Bill C-70 be re-activated and approved when Parliament resumes?

But in relation to tariffs. How many countries might now turn to China even more as a result of US isolationism.

 

[McG]

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

I don’t think you are cheering for Trump. But you seem to really need this to be Trudeau’s fault. There is nothing to substantiate that position. There is nothing of substance to your list. It is six degrees from Kevin Bacon but politics.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I cannot speak to pre-charter, but it wouldn’t be applicable anyway. If we have a war, invasion, or insurrection we can revisit it.



And which category of emergency enumerated in the Emergencies Act do you suggest would be applicable?

Carney’s not exactly unfamiliar with being in a leadership role through major economic downturns. Suggesting he would somehow usurp our statutorily prescribed election date and stretch government by a year over tariffs is just a weird fantasy. There are people I’d expect that from, but you’re not one of them.

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

I agree with Brihard, here, that the Parliament will not be extended over this tariff strife.

Many reasons: First, The Emergencies Act and the authority in the constitution for extending Parliament are not related provisions of the law. There are national emergencies that do not fall into the categories of war, invasion (how is that different than war?) or insurrection, which are the only cases permitting the extension of a siting Parliament's term.

Second: One third + 1 of the members of Parliament need vote to refuse the extension for it to not, repeat, not happen. With a HoC of 338 and 120 conservatives right now, there is no way in hell an extension can be adopted by the Commons.

 

[Good2Golf]

But in relation to tariffs. How many countries might now turn to China even more as a result of US isolationism.

I don’t know.

Canada needs to focus on Canada, which includes addressing foreign adversarial action against its institutions.