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

[IKnowNothing]

Well, naive, starry eyed me continues to go with what POTUS47 says - also without context as well as what some would consider pure spin: "Canada doesn’t even allow U.S. Banks to open or do business there."

So, who's lying, then?

Both

 

[QV]

3. Listing the cartels as terrorist entities: the criteria for listing a terrorist group are specific and require an ideological/political component per the definitions of terrorism in the criminal code. Not sure how they’ll force that particular shaped peg in that particular shaped hole.

Is that a legislative amendment that could be in the bill tabled by the new PM Carney and the NDP move to change the fixed election dates?

 

[PuckChaser]

So we'll be paying $100m in cancelation fees and not get any internet?

This is the way. Hopefully he backs off the ledge because any Canadian alternative is trash compared to Starlink.

 

[mariomike]

So not Toronto then?

/levity

Nice to see men I interested in team sports. Even if only for one moment.

/levity

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is that a legislative amendment that could be in the bill tabled by the new PM Carney and the NDP move to change the fixed election dates?

No. It requires committee study and there will be opposition. Many of our Middle East temporary guests friends if Team Red are/were/will be caught in this.

 

[Cloud Cover]

who says we are going to do it lol?

Theres what 30000 RCMP and 17000 CBSA? How many of those can we say are "border"?

All of the 17000.

 

[daftandbarmy]

We have zero knowledge of what else was agreed upon but delayed in being released at this time.

I think we all know how it went down

 

[brihard]

who says we are going to do it lol?

Theres what 30000 RCMP and 17000 CBSA? How many of those can we say are "border"?

About 18,000 RCMP cops, though of course civilian roles are essential too. Most are ‘contract policing’, ie provincial or municipal police. Everything spoken of today is a federal policing matter. This is all going to draw from the same relatively modest pool of people. I have absolutely no idea where they imagine there are additional trained people to throw at any of these problems. The Mounties going to front line uniformed border work right now are coming from what’s left of the teams that are pivoting from Mexican cartel cocaine to domestic fentanyl.

I mean yeah, throw tons of money and such at this, do hiring blitzes… But there isn’t really an ‘in case of emergency break glass’ manpower reserve here. This is a long, long game.

Parliament needs to sit and pass changes to terrorism legislation + funding.

For the money laundering but we’ll probably need a RICO type of legal regime to capture up and downstream bits.

Extraditions will become much more regular. Charter implications.

MLAT will need a serious overhaul to speed it up or perhaps replace it with something much more real time operationally focussed.

US drug laws are much more severe than Canadian. Likely need to be harmonized.

Wiretap and monitoring laws, regs, equipment, procedures all need to be standardized across borders. Charter again.

US DEA back in full swing. (Yay for me!)

Financial and property seizures, proceeds of crime etc all need to be updated.

Not going to happen in 30 days or even 6 months.

NDA will require a change to begin daily assistance to law enforcement and CBSA.

Lots of nodding my head ‘yes’ to this. Allow me to mull.

 

[QV]

3. Listing the cartels as terrorist entities: the criteria for listing a terrorist group are specific and require an ideological/political component per the definitions of terrorism in the criminal code. Not sure how they’ll force that particular shaped peg in that particular shaped hole.

Could the cartels not just become a "listed entity" like the Proud Boys?

 

[suffolkowner]

All of the 17000.

problem solved

 

[JLB50]

Really? He got Canada, Mexico and Panama to cave.

Not sure what that really means in the scheme of things. Think of all the countries that caved to Hitler.

 

[brihard]

Could the cartels not just become a "listed entity" like the Proud Boys?

That’s precisely what I understand PMJT to mean. Thing is, ‘listed entity’ means listed under I think it’s s. 83.05, and it ties to the definition of terrorism under s.83.01. The definition of terrorism has, simplified, two prongs: Ideology and harm. Harm is straightforward and easy to make out. Killing/badly hurting people, major destruction, or things that can be reasonably expected to cause same.

The ideology - political, religious, whatever - is much less clear. The proud boys have a clear political ideology that met the definition; for them the harm part was probably tougher to establish. The cartels are harmful as hell, but if they are essentially ‘just (awful) businesses’, forcing them into the 83.01 definition for an 83.05 listing is tricky.

I think we’ll see a lot being hung on the propensity of the cartels to usurp the rule of law and monopoly of lawful armed force. But recognize that each organization/group needs to be listed (and justified) individually. They can’t just say ‘the cartels’.

The articulation will be interesting to see when they do it. And I believe they will, but it’s going to be a real challenge.

 

[QV]

Kidnapping and usurping the Mexican government may play a factor.

 

[brihard]

Kidnapping and usurping the Mexican government may play a factor.

Right. But each individual group will need both the ‘harm’ and ‘ideology’ prongs to be satisfied. Some will be straightforward. Others will not. Pragmatically, identifying and hitting those involved with fentanyl will be the priority.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Could the cartels not just become a "listed entity" like the Proud Boys?

Proud Boys were delisted in the US on or About January 23 at the Oval Office.

 

[Quirky]

Starlink back on. For now.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/ontario-cancels-starlink-contract-latest-canadian-tariffs-protest-2025-02-03/

Have all the made in US alcohol bottles/cans been removed from the shelves already? On the bus off the bus.

 

[Cloud Cover]

That’s precisely what I understand PMJT to mean. Thing is, ‘listed entity’ means listed under I think it’s s. 83.05, and it ties to the definition of terrorism under s.83.01. The definition of terrorism has, simplified, two prongs: Ideology and harm. Harm is straightforward and easy to make out. Killing/badly hurting people, major destruction, or things that can be reasonably expected to cause same.

The ideology - political, religious, whatever - is much less clear. The proud boys have a clear political ideology that met the definition; for them the harm part was probably tougher to establish. The cartels are harmful as hell, but if they are essentially ‘just (awful) businesses’, forcing them into the 83.01 definition for an 83.05 listing is tricky.

I think we’ll see a lot being hung on the propensity of the cartels to usurp the rule of law and monopoly of lawful armed force. But recognize that each organization/group needs to be listed (and justified) individually. They can’t just say ‘the cartels’.

The articulation will be interesting to see when they do it. And I believe they will, but it’s going to be a real challenge.

Even if they meet the Canadian definition vis a vis their US threat, they actually have to have Canada in their crosshairs as a terrorist target or intended target or conspiring, counselling thereto. Conversely if a Cartel related entity is listed in the US, it may have no nexus to Canada. A well organized Cartel will take advantage of that, by using proxies for example existing organized crime in Canada.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That’s precisely what I understand PMJT to mean. Thing is, ‘listed entity’ means listed under I think it’s s. 83.05, and it ties to the definition of terrorism under s.83.01. The definition of terrorism has, simplified, two prongs: Ideology and harm. Harm is straightforward and easy to make out. Killing/badly hurting people, major destruction, or things that can be reasonably expected to cause same.

The ideology - political, religious, whatever - is much less clear. The proud boys have a clear political ideology that met the definition; for them the harm part was probably tougher to establish. The cartels are harmful as hell, but if they are essentially ‘just (awful) businesses’, forcing them into the 83.01 definition for an 83.05 listing is tricky.

I think we’ll see a lot being hung on the propensity of the cartels to usurp the rule of law and monopoly of lawful armed force. But recognize that each organization/group needs to be listed (and justified) individually. They can’t just say ‘the cartels’.

The articulation will be interesting to see when they do it. And I believe they will, but it’s going to be a real challenge.

Harm - ‘major destruction’ - I would argue that this applies to the Cartels.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am very disappointed with our Prime Minister (and the President of Mexico). Today, he sacrificed part of our sovereignty at the altar of politics (or maybe he was just scared... and he is one of those types that are scared to be scared, which makes you a lousy negotiator.)

We have now set the tone that every time in the next four years that Trump threatens us economically, we will agree to do the US's bidding at our own expense.

That is not negotiation, that is cowardice.

We have agreed to do all these things that were not on our political radar for Trump and what did we get in return? Nothing - just 30 days until it starts all over again.

And we didn't negotiate anything. We didn't put any Canadian reciprocal demands before Trump. We didn't bargain to get anything for Canada. Why? Because the Trudeau government had no time to prepare nor did they even know what we would be "ordered" to do in the talk with Trump. And we didn't have our own list of wants ready to go.

Personally, had I been PM, Knowing that last night on TV that Trump said he would talk to us and Mexico Monday morning , I would have had the personnel handling communications this morning answer: "Sorry, the PM is not available to talk to you at this time, but will gladly take your call this afternoon after 3:30" (This sets the tone that Trump will not dictate the schedule, but that from now on, it will have to be mutually agreed). Then in the afternoon, I would have said nothing: I would have left Trump make all his points and noted them, then told him we would get back to him, probably with demands of our own. Then I would have made the simple point that we don't negotiate with a gun to our head and that the actual negotiations would begin only after the tariffs were permanently off the table and don't bother to call us before then to start negotiations.

I would then have informed all the medias on the tenor of the conversation and that the ball was in Trump's court if he wishes to negotiate anything.

The way to handle bully negotiators is not found in the Art of the deal (which is only the bully's bible), it found ion the reasoned negotiation techniques taught at the Harvard negotiation Project.

 

[IKnowNothing]

"The tariffs announced on Saturday will be paused for a 30-day period to see whether or not a final economic deal with Canada can be structured," he said.

JT did a solid job on the brinksmanship- met nose to nose and blinked in a largely performative way. Didn't escalate, but didn't roll over. Bought time.

But this was always just the weigh in. The main event is coming. And for as much as I hate DJT, he has successfully reframed the nature of this relationship as one where we are negotiating to forestall tariffs.