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

[Genetk44]

Right. And their prosperity continues to race away from us. Well-played, Canada.

An interesting article apropos agricultural subsidies and farming in the US versus Canada The Last Days of Butter Ridge

 

[Czech_pivo]

Hopefully good news for us and for the US.

U.S. ambassador cancels speaking appearance in Ottawa due to ‘important’ meetings with White House officials — CTV News

Just over one hour before U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra was scheduled to be a featured speaker at the 2025 Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference in Ottawa, organizers announced the ambassador’s fireside chat had been cancelled.

stocks.apple.com

U.S. ambassador cancels speaking appearance in Ottawa due to ‘important’ meetings with White House officials

 

[Altair]

Hopefully good news for us and for the US.

U.S. ambassador cancels speaking appearance in Ottawa due to ‘important’ meetings with White House officials — CTV News

Just over one hour before U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra was scheduled to be a featured speaker at the 2025 Canada Strong and Free Networking Conference in Ottawa, organizers announced the ambassador’s fireside chat had been cancelled.

stocks.apple.com

U.S. ambassador cancels speaking appearance in Ottawa due to ‘important’ meetings with White House officials

Saving PP from himself.

Well done trump administration.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Saving PP from himself.

Well done trump administration.

Putting aside party politics for a few minutes, I really hope that this is a precursor for a good news announcement for both sides of the border.

 

[Altair]

Putting aside party politics for a few minutes, I really hope that this is a precursor for a good news announcement for both sides of the border.

If trump is involved I can only assume it's bad.

The fact the mexicans were here recently, undercutting the divide and conquer strategy the yanks have been trying to implement doesnt fill me with the warm and fuzzies.

 

[Altair]

’I’m not going back’: Canadians stand firm on boycotts of U.S. travel and liquor as trade talks continue

A vast majority of Canadians, eight out of 10, still believe boycotting American goods and travel to the U.S. is helpful in strengthening Canada’s bargaining position, according to a new survey by Nanos for CTV News.

www.ctvnews.ca

A vast majority of Canadians, eight out of 10, still believe boycotting American goods and travel to the U.S. is helpful in strengthening Canada’s bargaining position, according to a new survey by Nanos for CTV News.

Fifty-three per cent of respondents believe a boycott is helpful, while 29 per cent believe it’s somewhat helpful.

That’s largely unchanged from six months ago when Nanos asked respondents the same question – 54 per cent found it “helpful” and 26 per cent “somewhat helpful.” Just 10.5 per cent of respondents think avoiding U.S. goods and travel is “not helpful” to Canada’s bargaining position.

This is way better and way stronger than counter tariffs or banning booze.

Just everyday Canadians en mass deciding screw it, boycott them.

Money talks.

I hope this continues long after we get a deal.

 

[Altair]

Just how much has Canadian travel to the U.S. declined? Researchers suggest it’s more than we thought

A decline in travel to the U.S. may be more significant than it first appeared, according to Canadian researchers.

www.ctvnews.ca

A decline in travel to the U.S. may be more significant than it first appeared, according to Canadian researchers.

Initial estimates based on border crossings from Canada into the U.S. suggested a decrease of about 25 per cent, wrote researchers from the University of Toronto, citing data from Statistics Canada.

Recent findings, argue researchers Karen Chapple, Yihoi Jung and Jeff Allen, suggest that this year-over-year analysis of crossings doesn’t provide the full picture.


The group instead looked at cellphone activity in major U.S. metropolitan areas, and said they found a median decline in visits of 42 per cent.

Just to add to it.

 

[Kirkhill]

The No Longer Permanent Joint Board

U.S. says it’s pausing long-standing military board with Canada - National | Globalnews.ca

The U.S. undersecretary of defence says Washington is pausing a long-standing military board, saying "Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments."

globalnews.ca

July 1 2026

Canada Day

Alberta West Coast Pipeline submission as per the MOU

USMCA renew or quit day.

....

I sense a degree of commonality with all these moving pieces.

And the all pertain to Trade, Tariffs and Defence and Security expenditures.

...

Less words. More action.

 

[Kirkhill]

And the emphasis on Greenland, the Arctic, security and the cost of security has not gone away.

In Closed-Door Talks, U.S. Demands a Major Role in Greenland

Greenlandic officials worry about the direction of the negotiations aimed at defusing President Trump’s threats to seize their island. But they have little leverage.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Kirkhill]

My personal opinion.

Contributing a small Canadian Division to I Corps tomorrow would go a long way.

4, 7, 11 and 25 Inf Divs are effectively 2 Brigade Divs.
4 and 7 are based on the Stryker.
11 and 25 are plain leg infantry

4 has an Arrmoured Brigade added
7 is home to the Multi Domain Task Force with the Long Range effects
11 has one of its Brigades Airborne Capable.

All the Brigades, with the exception of the ABCT are essentially two infantry battalions with an ISTAR battalion and a Cannon battalion.

...

A Canadian Division with two Brigades, one with LAVs and one Light, and an M777/HIMARS regiment would fit right into the I Corps formation and contribute to the NORAD/North Command mission alongside 7 and 11.

That would eat up the Light Infantry Regiment and one of the LAV Brigades with a Medium Armoured Regt and a pair of LAV battalions with an M777 Regiment.

It would leave an Armoured Brigade and a LAV Brigade and an Artillery Brigade for expeditionary work.

The Reserve structure can proceed at best Canadian pace.

 

[lenaitch]

And the emphasis on Greenland, the Arctic, security and the cost of security has not gone away.

In Closed-Door Talks, U.S. Demands a Major Role in Greenland

Greenlandic officials worry about the direction of the negotiations aimed at defusing President Trump’s threats to seize their island. But they have little leverage.

www.nytimes.com

This Administration has an interesting concept of 'cooperation'.

Alberta separatists should read that article.

 

[Kirkhill]

John Ivison: 'Dangerous politics': Trump suspends joint defence board with Canada

'This is politically motivated and fits perfectly into the ongoing tactics of the current administration to undermine Canada in as many ways as possible'

nationalpost.com

Ivison reckons that Roosevelt would be shocked at this turn of events.

Roosevelt was every bit as fixated on securing Monroe's boundaries as Trump, Truman and Eisenhower and every bit as willing to play hardball.
He also was no friend of a Britain except to the extent that Britain was the enemy of Hitler and Mussolini. Stalin was a wild card.

I don't think Roosevelt would be at all shocked, nor would Eisenhower.

Canadians, and Canadian politicians in particular, have developed far too rosy a view of their world. And part of that has been believing that the Yanks don't really mean all those things they say.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

People constantly forget one thing that came out of the Canada/US joint defense cooperation of WWII: Canada was the only country that actually paid the US cash on delivery for every single thing we bought from the US for the military in WWII. Basically, Canada came out of the war with no war debt to the US. The only country in the world to do so. And the US bought a lot of military products from Canada, either as finish products or as inputs to their war production (especially for the Manhattan project) . And if war was to ever break out again, you can bet on the fact that it would happen again. That's just the way resources are distributed in North America.

 

[McG]

Contributing a small Canadian Division to I Corps tomorrow would go a long way.

This would do absolutely nothing for Canada. Doesn’t fit any national strategy. Doesn’t earn “international relations points” with a president who doesn’t care about allies. Doesn’t support our commitments to NATO. Doesn’t please voters who will see it as an act of servitude.

 

[Kirkhill]

This would do absolutely nothing for Canada. Doesn’t fit any national strategy. Doesn’t earn “international relations points” with a president who doesn’t care about allies. Doesn’t support our commitments to NATO. Doesn’t please voters who will see it as an act of servitude.

I wouldn't call as second, deployable, tactical divisional HQ nothing.
I am not proposing building new brigades.
I am suggesting that existing and planned brigades be divided between two active HQs, one focused on National/Continental Defence and one focused on Expeditionary/NATO operations. The Continental Defence one plays to both the NORAD/NorthCom requirement and the European High Arctic interest while employing assets comparable to those envisaged by both the US and the Europeans. The NATO one is focused on the Heavy fight. The pair of LAV brigades offer a swing capability that could see battalions crossed to the other Divison or even the Brigade.

Likewise, enablers, such as those found in 6 CCSB, which contains elements found in the US MDTF construct, could be developed nationally while retaining an ability to dispatch elements to the expedtionary force as needs define.

And all of this is in the national interest, regardless of who is in the White House or, for that matter, Brussels.

 

[McG]

When looking for a question to fit your answer, somethings are not even worth a fit test. Trump’s assault in Canada/US relations is not something you are going to solve with a modified CA orbat … regardless of its elegance.

And in this case you are proposing we created a new division HQ (for the glory of a new division HQ) and harvest manoeuvre brigades and some combat support from 1st Cdn Div, smash these together without sustainment or other new units (so we will go from one capable warfighting division to one anemic warfighting division and a placebo division) and we then hand over the new division to a US Army Corps that is assigned to the Pacific theatre.

In the end, this would do absolutely nothing for Canada. Doesn’t fit any national strategy. Doesn’t help national defence. Doesn’t earn “international relations points” with a president who doesn’t care about allies. Doesn’t support our commitments to NATO. Doesn’t please voters who will see it as an act of servitude.

 

[Kirkhill]

NORTHCOM standing up 'Nordic Bridge' to boost US coordination in Arctic - Breaking Defense

Gen. Guillot said, “The goal is always to defend as far away from the homeland as we can" and that special operations forces will play a key role.

breakingdefense.com

Northcom's Nordic Bridge linking NorthCom with EuCom.

 

[HavokFour]

Laying out once again that the auto sector is something they don't want to share with us at all, and even seems to be the main driving factor for all of this.

U.S. floats preferential tariffs for Canada, Mexico if they co-ordinate on external levies

Ottawa recently signalled openness to ‘Fortress North America’ approach to reducing Chinese products entering supply chains

www.theglobeandmail.com

Archive

The wait it out strategy should continue. Otherwise I don't see much reason to not be more open to more foreign car brands being sold and/or built here, because otherwise the current auto sector we have is going to go extinct if the US admin gets what it wants.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Laying out once again that the auto sector is something they don't want to share with us at all, and even seems to be the main driving factor for all of this.

U.S. floats preferential tariffs for Canada, Mexico if they co-ordinate on external levies

Ottawa recently signalled openness to ‘Fortress North America’ approach to reducing Chinese products entering supply chains

www.theglobeandmail.com

Archive

The wait it out strategy should continue. Otherwise I don't see much reason to not be more open to more foreign car brands being sold and/or built here, because otherwise the current auto sector we have is going to go extinct if the US admin gets what it wants.

I’ve pointed out the facts in here previously. The ‘Big 3’ market share in Canada has dropped from over 60% 25yrs ago to under 40% now. It will go under 30% in the next 10yrs unless something drastic changes.
The Americans are close to losing their biggest export market and what has been a ‘cash cow’ for them for the last 50+ yrs.
I will not be one to weep for them.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Laying out once again that the auto sector is something they don't want to share with us at all, and even seems to be the main driving factor for all of this.

On the surface level I wouldn't have qualms if the auto sector itself deemed Canada unprofitable and pulled out. That's just business.

It being Gov policy in this instance is the problem.

I’ve pointed out the facts in here previously. The ‘Big 3’ market share in Canada has dropped from over 60% 25yrs ago to under 40% now. It will go under 30% in the next 10yrs unless something drastic changes.
The Americans are close to losing their biggest export market and what has been a ‘cash cow’ for them for the last 50+ yrs.
I will not be one to weep for them.

I think it will depend on class of vehicle, but overall you may be correct. You'll be hard pressed to get me into anything other than a Ford truck.