• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

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

In the before times, it was considered a “nice to have but not at the expense of x sector in my province”.
Not to mention things like civil service capacity to deal with technical questions that might inform which standard to adopt, whether one of the existing 10-13 or a compromise version, and ability to identify linked/second- or third-order impacts on things like signage or other regulations.
 
1738804485140.png
An artist's conception of the proposed LNG floating liquefaction plant planned to be built near Kitimat, B.C. It is one of the 18 projects the provincial government plans to fast track. Photo by Cedar LNG


1738805095931.png
Prodigy Clean Energy and its partners hope to produce floating nuclear power stations that, like in this illustration, could dock in remote Arctic communities and supply less emissions-intensive power than the diesel-fired plants they use now.Supplied by Prodigy Clean Energy


So, if they can contemplate floating SMRs behind berm in ice-infested arctic waters why not float an LNG plant off shore in Hudson's or James Bay? With or without the SMR?

....

Extend the shipping season

1738805418078.png

Double Acting Tanker. The Christophe de Margerie-class ice-breaking LNG carriers are built by DSME (Daewo Shipbuilding Marine Engineering) for the Yamal LNG project. Image courtesy of Dmitrii Lobusov​

1738805545782.png

Double Acting Tanker Tempera in ice condition 1​

 
And in Quebec ...



Next thing you know people will be rediscovering John A. MacDonald's National Policy and Medicine Line.
 

Terry Glavin: There's no turning back for Canada now​

Do we have the will to persist in the resistance to American hegemony that was at the heart of our founding prime minister's grand visions?

Author of the article:
Terry Glavin
Published Feb 05, 2025 • 5 minute read

154 Comments


In the variously stirring and plaintive appeals to American reason that have emanated from this country’s political class over the past several weeks, there’s something unmistakably poignant and strangely melancholy about all of it.

Responding to the manic declarations of trade war and threats to annex Canada uttered by U.S. President Donald Trump, the theme running through everything is a yearning for a return to the way things were.

And here’s the problem. There is no returning.

There’s an odd sentimentality about all of it, a wistfulness for what Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described as “the most successful economic, military and security partnership the world has ever seen,” or what Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has called “our centuries-long history of trade, of friendship, of common defence.”

You don’t have to listen to these entreaties for very long before you notice that they sound a lot like eulogies. That’s not the intended effect, but that’s what they are. Because it’s over.

The United States had a damn good run, but now the Americans are retreating from the world, turning in on themselves, venturing out only for the purposes of spectacle, or for the dumb excitement of causing a scene. On our side of the 49th parallel, we’re stuck with as grave a crisis as this country has ever faced.

There’s really no such thing as “the Canadian economy” anymore. It’s been hollowed out. So now what? Are we supposed to abase ourselves at Trump’s feet and make every effort to put things back together again, or should we salvage what we can from the wreckage and strike out on our own, and rebuild an economy from the ground up?

After decades of globalization, neoliberalism and continental integration, Canada’s relationship with what is looking and behaving very much like a dying empire is haunted by echoes of what we feared most when Canada was being born during the years following 1867. The whole idea of a united Canada was forged as an act of resistance to American hegemony. It’s as though we’re right back where we started.

Thirty years after Confederation, even, we were still trying to get our relationship with the United States sorted. “Every American statesman covets Canada. The greed for its acquisition is still on the increase,” Sir John A. Macdonald, Canada’s founding prime minister, said back then. The old chieftain was dying. He was just about to throw himself into his last election campaign, in 1891. “With my utmost effort, with my latest breath, will I oppose the veiled treason which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance.”

That’s what Macdonald had to say about Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals and their notion of a “commercial union” with the United States, a treaty of “unrestricted reciprocity.” Those ideas went down to defeat with Laurier, but Laurier was later elected, and he kept at it until 1911, when he gave up.
“There will be no more pilgrimages to Washington.” But of course there were many more pilgrimages.

After Laurier, there was the Canada-U.S. Reciprocal Trade Agreement of 1935. Then there was the 23-nation General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of 1947, the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988, the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 and Trump’s own United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement of 2020.

It may be that now, we’ve got only 30 days. That’s how long Trump has given us to decipher and satisfy his shifting, nonsensical demands. The reprieve appears to have been really a face-saving measure, an off-ramp he took after his inane tariff-everybody ideas took such a drubbing from the American Manufacturers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal and so on.

Reiterating his determination to force our annexation as America’s 51st state if we fail to submit to a crippling 25 per cent tariff on southbound Canadian exports — with a 10 per cent exception for Alberta oil, which he pretends his country doesn’t need — it’s come down to a jumble of interim commitments about border security. There’s even a provision requiring the appointment of a “fentanyl czar,” which sounds like something out of a script for South Park.

Canada is adrift. Within 30 days, we will know whether or not Trump is satisfied that we have become suitably obsequious and accommodating, or whether we will have the will and the wherewithal to persist in the resistance that was at the heart of John A. Macdonald’s grand visions.

It hasn’t been easy to hold our own. The United States emerged from the Second World War as the most powerful economic, military and cultural dynamo in the history of nation states. Back then, we stood our ground as a dominant force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We went along with the American agenda at the United Nations, at the World Trade Organization and the World Economic Forum. We played along.

We fought alongside Americans in the Korean War, but not for the Americans, as it’s often claimed. The Korean conflict was a defensive operation authorized by the United Nations. It was the first and last time the UN went to war. We stayed out of Vietnam. Instead, we welcomed American draft dodgers who ended up forming the largest single cohort of immigrants in the latter half of the 20th century, a powerful cultural force in the university faculties, the civil service and in politics who gave us that peculiarly American-inflected and enfeebling anti-Americanism that was ingested whole by Canada’s boomers.

We stayed out of the Iraq War, too, but not, as the mythology would have it, because prime minister Jean Chrétien bravely stood up to U.S. president George Bush and said “no.” Bush never even asked. And we had nothing to offer anyway. We didn’t stay out of Afghanistan. We went in with our boots on. But despite the claim you’ll hear in our recent appeals for American trade-war mercy, we did not fight for an American cause. We fought for a sovereign Afghan republic in a NATO-commanded operation that included soldiers from as many as 50 countries. It was a righteous cause that was ultimately betrayed by Trump’s surrender to the Taliban in 2020 and Joe Biden’s ignominious withdrawal in 2021.

For every cliché about Canada enjoying the privilege of living under the “American security umbrella,” it was always to Washington’s benefit that Canada was America’s best friend. When we prospered, we prospered with the Americans, and they with us. We did so by keeping our heads down, and our great fortune was that Americans weren’t especially interested in paying attention to us anyway.

But we’re just now emerging from a decade shaped by a prime minister who craved the American limelight and sought it out obsessively. From the beginning, Trudeau championed every annoying fad and frivolous cause taken up by American “progressives” whose policy preoccupations are now being turned to rubble from the wrecking-ball onslaught of Donald Trump’s weirdly-mutated Republican Party.

So now we’re stepping out into this strange new world too reliant on foreign trade, too reliant on the United States and too reliant on oil, after enduring 10 years of being subjected to what you could call a federally funded National Demoralization Strategy.

It’s impossible to say what comes next. But there’s no turning back now.

It was MacDonald's National Policy of tariffs, protecting east west trade, that created the wealthy Canada which Laurier aspired to lead to his "Sunny Ways".

It was also MacDonald's Medicine Line that gave shelter to Sitting Bull and his people after the Little Big Horn. They found refuge at Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan. Refugees seeking asylum in MacDonald's Canada.

 
You’re moving the goalposts. You said they’d need to recall Parliament; I simply pointed why that’s not the case. Harmonizing things like the standards applicable to the filling of an infant car seat or the max axle weight on a provincial highway isn’t something that requires Parliament to weigh in.



And there is counter-point from Chris Selley...


University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe has suggested Ontario simply offer to join the 15-year-old New West Partnership Trade Agreement, under which every province to Ontario’s west has committed to reducing these barriers.(A broadly similar framework agreement exists among the Atlantic provinces.)


But, perhaps there is hope.

 
From a post national state to nationalism in a few short months.
Whatever trends the feds think are popular that can help them win a few seats in the next election...that's all it is. Jumping onto opportunistic bandwagons.

We all know Trudeau/Freeland/Carney/Ghould don't give a crap about Canada as a nation. If they did, they wouldn't try to sow division all the time, and wouldn't have deliberately bankrupted us.


Opportunists. Power hungry opportunists. That's all they are. (AKA leeches...)
 
You’re moving the goalposts. You said they’d need to recall Parliament; I simply pointed why that’s not the case. Harmonizing things like the standards applicable to the filling of an infant car seat or the max axle weight on a provincial highway isn’t something that requires Parliament to weigh in.
Possibly not. Without actually looking at each individual statute, typically, regulatory-type statutes are 'enabling', with the actual details and 'meat' embodied in their regulations. Regulatory changes can be done by Cabinet which, I believe, still exists and gazetted.

Interprovincial matters that are under federal control (e.g. transportation, movement of goods) could possibly done fairly quickly. While the premiers seem to have largely locked arms and sang kumbaya, I remain skeptical that, when it gets down to the short strokes, they will be as willing to relinquish protection. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement has a couple hundred exemptions and 'carve outs' relating to goods but also areas like labour mobility, procurement, professional certification, etc.
 
Possibly not. Without actually looking at each individual statute, typically, regulatory-type statutes are 'enabling', with the actual details and 'meat' embodied in their regulations. Regulatory changes can be done by Cabinet which, I believe, still exists and gazetted.

Interprovincial matters that are under federal control (e.g. transportation, movement of goods) could possibly done fairly quickly. While the premiers seem to have largely locked arms and sang kumbaya, I remain skeptical that, when it gets down to the short strokes, they will be as willing to relinquish protection. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement has a couple hundred exemptions and 'carve outs' relating to goods but also areas like labour mobility, procurement, professional certification, etc.
Yea but the bulk of this stuff is provincial legislation/regulation. That’s the point I’m making. From what I’ve read when trying to discern what these interprovincial barriers actually are, it tends to vary across things like product specifications, to professional licensure and trade tickets, to transportation regulations and such.

I’m not saying there’s no federal legislation in play- maybe in some cases there is. But there’s a lot to be gained by provinces identifying regulatory disparities and getting on the same page.

I guess Ontario will be a challenge for another month or so…
 
Yea but the bulk of this stuff is provincial legislation/regulation. That’s the point I’m making. From what I’ve read when trying to discern what these interprovincial barriers actually are, it tends to vary across things like product specifications, to professional licensure and trade tickets, to transportation regulations and such.

I’m not saying there’s no federal legislation in play- maybe in some cases there is. But there’s a lot to be gained by provinces identifying regulatory disparities and getting on the same page.

I guess Ontario will be a challenge for another month or so…
Yep. If you want to practice forestry in B.C., Alberta and some other provinces, you have to be a Registered Professional Forester in that province. You’re a RPF from another province? You’re going to have apply, mentor and write the exam again in the new province. I’m sure that’s the same for many other professions as well.

Meanwhile, in other provinces like Manitoba, you just have to meet your employer’s requirements. If you go into business for yourself, you can just hang a shingle and call yourself a forester.
 
Okay...What???

I've been living under a rock my entire adult life, because I had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA this was even a thing!

This article is telling me that if I wanted to order a bottle of wine from the winery mentioned, there's a decent chance I actually couldn't, even though we're both Canadian??

If that's true, that's the dumbest f**king thing I've heard since Monday!!



Why is the elimination of these inter-provincial barriers just happening now? Why, after 10 years in power, is this matter just being addressed now? You'd think if it could potentially grow our economy by $200M, they'd have been ontop of it all while ago!?

I'm just speechless...honestly...
 
Okay...What???

I've been living under a rock my entire adult life, because I had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA this was even a thing!

This article is telling me that if I wanted to order a bottle of wine from the winery mentioned, there's a decent chance I actually couldn't, even though we're both Canadian??

If that's true, that's the dumbest f**king thing I've heard since Monday!!



Why is the elimination of these inter-provincial barriers just happening now? Why, after 10 years in power, is this matter just being addressed now? You'd think if it could potentially grow our economy by $200M, they'd have been ontop of it all while ago!?

I'm just speechless...honestly...
Interprovincial also got is none of the most egregious examples. Hell, it even went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2018 and was upheld as a valid exercise of provincial authority. Shows how strong these internal barriers can be.

The labour mobility is a big deal too, opening that up would foster competition.
 
This kind of inflexibility irritates the Americans, and also resulted in Britain walking away from free trade talks:


It's unfortunate, but there will be some pain to some industries to protect the rest of Canada from punitive tariffs.
 
This kind of inflexibility irritates the Americans, and also resulted in Britain walking away from free trade talks:


It's unfortunate, but there will be some pain to some industries to protect the rest of Canada from punitive tariffs.
I have mixed feelings about this. My grandfather was a founding member of the dairy board in Ontario and help install the dairy quota system. Which according to Gramps (he died in 2012 at the young age of 99), the original intention of the quota system and was to protect farmers. Specifically from American Dairy (cheaper and easier but lower quality to produce). However in the last 60 some odd years the number of Ontario dairy farms have shrunk significantly and the cost to get in is ludicrous. I have spoken with my dairy friends (I have helped them out at times with milking and purchased steers from them), many of the younger ones (not that many of them, young being under 50 BTW) realize its a big steep uphill climb to maintain the status quo.

Ironically, I am also friends with Michael Schmidt, raw dairy activist (and anti-supply management). When he was last visiting my farm, we had a lot of discussions about the unintended consequences and basically legal bullying he put up with from Ag Canada.

There are lots of pros and cons to the supply management argument. I do think, no matter what, supply management will be done away with sonner or later.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. My grandfather was a founding member of the dairy board in Ontario and help install the dairy quota system. Which according to Gramps (he died in 2012 at the young age of 99), the original intention of the quota system and was to protect farmers. Specifically from American Dairy (cheaper and easier but lower quality to produce). However in the last 60 some odd years the number of Ontario dairy farms have shrunk significantly and the cost to get in is ludicrous. I have spoken with my dairy friends (I have helped them out at times with milking and purchased steers from them), many of the younger ones (not that many of them, young being under 50 BTW) realize its a big steep uphill climb to maintain the status quo.

Ironically, I am also friends with Michael Schmidt, raw dairy activist (and anti-supply management). When he was last visiting my farm, we had a lot of discussions about the unintended consequences and basically legal bullying he put up with from Ag Canada.

There are lots of pros and cons to the supply management argument. I do think, no matter what, supply management will be done away with sonner or later.

Quebec's 'unique culture' won't last either, for similar reasons, and it will be interesting to see how Trump's vigorous free market philosophy will impact these tottering, centrally controlled, economic structures.
 
I am sure Quebec will not allow anything to be sold in Quebec unless the labels are in Quebecois.
 
I have mixed feelings about this. My grandfather was a founding member of the dairy board in Ontario and help install the dairy quota system. Which according to Gramps (he died in 2012 at the young age of 99), the original intention of the quota system and was to protect farmers. Specifically from American Dairy (cheaper and easier but lower quality to produce). However in the last 60 some odd years the number of Ontario dairy farms have shrunk significantly and the cost to get in is ludicrous. I have spoken with my dairy friends (I have helped them out at times with milking and purchased steers from them), many of the younger ones (not that many of them, young being under 50 BTW) realize its a big steep uphill climb to maintain the status quo.

Ironically, I am also friends with Michael Schmidt, raw dairy activist (and anti-supply management). When he was last visiting my farm, we had a lot of discussions about the unintended consequences and basically legal bullying he put up with from Ag Canada.

There are lots of pros and cons to the supply management argument. I do think, no matter what, supply management will be done away with sonner or later.
The family farm that they were trying to protect is largely dead. The concept setting up 20 head dairy herd to provide a regular paycheque to a small mixed livestock operation is almost unfathomable at this point.


Agreed with the bold- I just wish there was some creativity in finding a soft, long term landing. Find a way to protect as many of the "pro's" as possible while gradually unwinding to mitigate the debt/financial impact. Giving no ground until the moment we break completely and scrap the system is the worst possible path.
 
I've read that bi-lingualism costs upwards of $1B / year. How about French labels in Que and English labels everywhere else. Maybe we save $750M that way.
Labels are not the big money issue here.

Training, testing and translation and bilingual bonus payments.

It needs a big overhaul and smarter way to do this.
 
The family farm that they were trying to protect is largely dead.
No it isn't. A huge chunk of your beef and lamb come from small farm operations (Beef farm less than 200-300 head is small). They may be concentrated in feedlots for finish but they start in typical 30-100 head cow-calf operation in Ontario. Similar to sheep, you have everything from a 20 head operation to up over a few thousand. The advantage of small farms is the family can still work part time or full time OFF farm and get supplemental income (or mainstay income).

The small farm can adapt very quickly and sometimes survive economic hardships (our farm is surviving due to off farm income for the time being).

Hogs, Layersw, meat chickens, turkeys are all usually larger concentrated operations.

Small farms are not dead and they never will be.

They said in 1950s small farms are done, same with the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s.
 
Back
Top