CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[KevinB]

Well Trump attacked Canadian sovereignty and has been trolling Canada for months. What sort of reaction were you expecting?

Canadians need to understand that your sovereignty is solely guarded by the US Military. Rusted out Frigates, less than. handful of inoperable submarines, an inconsequential number of old MPA's, and half of the original number of ancient CF-18's is a credible force.

As for the bump in support for the outgoing leader and his performance, I suspect that anyone in that position would gain support. If PP was PM he’d also get kudos for standing up for the country. Doug Ford is all but guaranteed to win the election in Ontario because he took a hard stance. Even people that dislike him are conceding that.

Doug Ford is your version of Trump he says and does things for reactions. Not sure that's a solid model to emulate

If we keep going through this every 30 days and during CUSMA talks, I suspect polls will rise for whoever is in power as well.

Something something “Events dear boy, events.”

The key to dealing with Trump isn't necessarily what he says in public (also to heed that he refuses to lose a public argument - so it's often better to ignore the bluster to let him save face ) and see what he actually wants

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sadly a large percentage of Canadians view what happened yesterday as a victory and a pathway to not do very much else.

 

[Kilted]

Sadly a large percentage of Canadians view what happened yesterday as a victory and a pathway to not do very much else.

I'm concerned about what he is going to ask for next, and then 30 days after that. At what point do we simply say not and accept the tariffs.

 

[brihard]

I'm concerned about what he is going to ask for next, and then 30 days after that. At what point do we simply say not and accept the tariffs.

That’s a real concern. Though as I mentioned ruined yesterday, the legality of these tariffs is entirely tied to a declaration of an emergency at the border. If he moves the goalposts he’ll telegraph it with a new pretext.

B

Post in thread 'CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)'

Monday at 15:34

Something to remember, as a Trump trots out this that and the other thing in the eleventh hour before tariffs hit:

Legally. Trump’s tariffs are enacted under specific law, and are explicitly tied in his Executive Order directly and only to his claims about the actions of drug trafficking organizations at the border. Absent this declared emergency he does not have legal authority for arbitrarily doing what he did.

His actual executive order establishing the reasons for the tariffs and their extent can be read here: Read the full text of Trump's executive order imposing tariffs on...

• brihard

• 
• 

 

[QV]

I'm concerned about what he is going to ask for next, and then 30 days after that. At what point do we simply say not and accept the tariffs.

Very real possibility he moves ahead with deal making designed to absorb all or parts of Canada into the Union.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is the sort of success stories we need to both promote but also unfortunately highlights some of the behind the scenes legal crimes that has the US so upset. It also speaks to some loopholes that are being exploited that I view as legislatively difficult but also necessary as it needs to be comprehensive and not just a knee jerk "modify a clause" type change.

Article courtesy of the Edmonton Journal:

Police lay charges in $47M Alberta-B.C. money laundering operation: 'One of the biggest'​

Jonny Wakefield
Published Feb 02, 2025 • Last updated 17 hours ago • 3 minute read
Police lay charges in $47M Alberta-B.C. money laundering operation: 'One of the biggest'

On Jan. 30, 2025, the RCMP's Edmonton-based federal financial crime team announced the arrest of a B.C. man allegedly involved in organized crime and money laundering.

Article content​

A former police investigator says a recently uncovered money laundering scheme spanning B.C. and Alberta is among the largest he’s seen.

On Thursday, the RCMP’s Edmonton-based federal financial crime team announced the arrest of a B.C. man allegedly involved in organized crime and money laundering.

Investigators claim Harry Seo, 30, of Burnaby, and six others laundered proceeds of crime “via online transactions of illicit cannabis” in both provinces between September 2018 and August 2020 to the tune of $47 million. They say the criminal organization used Alberta and B.C. numbered companies, which operated as unregistered money services businesses.

Seo is also alleged to have operated illicit “cannabis-related” businesses in Edmonton and Burnaby.

Stephen Scott, a former Mountie who spent almost two decades investigating money laundering and asset forfeiture, was struck by the size of the alleged operation.

“Certainly for Alberta, it’s probably one of the biggest they’ve ever had. I’ve never seen anything in the media that comes close to that.”

Based on what police have said publicly, Scott said it is a rare case based solely on money laundering — rather than money laundering paired with other offences like drug trafficking or fraud.

Dispensaries and e-transfers​

Money service businesses are firms that transmit or convert money. The illegal money services businesses in this case received, transferred or converted dirty money through illicit cannabis sales “via a variety of online dispensaries,” police said.

The entities also received “tens of millions” through e-transfer payments. Investigators used the emails attached to the transfers to identify eight people “who received a total of $47 million in proceeds of crime.”

Seo is accused of being paid by the criminal organization for laundering the dirty money and for concealing its origins from law enforcement, regulators and financial institutions. He was arrested by Vancouver police on Dec. 30 and charged with laundering proceeds of crime, commission of an offence for a criminal organization, failing to register a money services business and unauthorized possession of cannabis for the purpose of selling.

Seo is one of the last of the alleged conspirators to be charged. RCMP say five others have already been sentenced as far back as June, including four Edmonton residents.

None of the convicted Edmontonians were named by RCMP, but they include a 25-year-old sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence and ordered to forfeit $155,000 deemed proceeds of crime; a 30-year-old handed a 12-month conditional sentence and ordered to forfeit $105,000; a 35-year-old given a nine-month conditional sentence, who forfeited $70,000 in dirty money; and a 26-year-old handed a 10-month CSO and ordered to surrender $85,000.

An unnamed Ontario resident allegedly involved in the scheme is set to face trial in Edmonton on Nov. 3. That person is charged with failing to register a money services business under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act.

RCMP Insp. John Lamming called the probe a “substantial win” in Canada’s fight against money laundering, which he said undermines the “economic integrity of Canada’s financial institutions.”

Scott said he would be interested to see more details about the case, including whether any of the unregistered money services businesses operated in public with names the public would recognize.

He is also curious about how the scheme came to light and the role played by FINTRAC, the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada.

The case also stands out because of the criminal organization allegation against Seo, Scott said, adding “it’s not a charge that’s laid very often” in money laundering cases.

B.C. in recent years has been in the spotlight for the prevalence of money laundering — though one study suggested it might be even more widespread in Alberta.

A 2019 report from the B.C. government’s Expert Panel on Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate estimated $7 billion was laundered through B.C.’s economy in 2018, raising the cost of buying a home and financing the province’s opioid crisis. The report estimated that more than $10 billion was laundered through the Alberta economy in 2015, a figure that was met with skepticism by Alberta’s ministry of justice.

Maybe someone here with more knowledge on this subject can shed some more light on this.

A few years back a person that I know who works in Real Estate in the GTA once told that that an immigrant from China can only legally bring with them 30k USD when they leave China to immigrant elsewhere. When I asked them how it was possible for them to come here (or the US) and buy a house in the GTA with that little money. They kind of laughed and said, why they smuggle it in of course, either through a shell company or gold or bank wires.

Anyone here know if the 30k USD amount when leaving China is correct?

 

[Kirkhill]

TARIFFS ARE LEGITIMATE!

So, this morning I heard on the radio, the Premier of Newfoundland averring that Free Trade across Canada, ditching inter-provincial trade barriers, both tariffs and non-tariff barriers, would be difficult.

Short form: Tariffs have utility.

....

A couple of days ago I referenced an article where the author asked if Trump was seeking Revenge or Revenue.

I suggest we might as well as if local police departments and city halls are using traffic fines, and bylaws generally, for Revenge or Revenue.

...

To my mind a tariff is nothing more than a control, a lever to affect behaviour. Just like fines control the behaviour of drivers and protect the kids and pedestrians in a city so tariffs control the behaviour of traders and protect the citizens of countries.

The tariff can control the rate at which goods and services enter the country, the impact those goods and services have on costs, jobs and incomes and loss of wealth to foreigners.

Tariffs are held to be legitimate in every trade agreement on the planet, including free trade agreements. Every FTA, and every nation, has its schedule of tariffs. That goes for Canada, the EU and Japan.

The big question is whether or not the discretionary power to levy tariffs should be held at the political level, the executive level or in courts, and if in courts whose courts when and where.

I am inclined to keep the power in the hands of people that I can vote out of power every 2 to 5 years.

....

Yes there are costs of tariffs, like there are costs of every other control mechanism. But there are costs associated with uncontrolled actions.

Even Adam Smith saw value in tariffs.

Lawrence Solomon: Trump’s tariff war has one surprisingly strong supporter: Adam Smith​

No political leader anywhere in the world is truer to Adam Smith’s prescriptions for free trade than Donald Trump

Lawrence Solomon

Published Sep 25, 2018

The trade wars are continuing with U.S. President Donald Trump’s levy of tariffs this week on another US$200 billion in Chinese imports, as are condemnations from commentators of the left and right who slam Trump’s demand for fair and reciprocal trade as ignorant and unsophisticated.

Trump’s trade policies “ignore the foundational economic lessons of Adam Smith,” stated The Independent’s economics editor in an article that referred to Trump as a “crazed protectionist.” Earlier this month, Foreign Policy lamented Trump policies that are “in defiance of nearly 250 years of economic wisdom going back to Adam Smith,” and before that Nobel-winning economist Robert Shiller suggested Trump and other protectionists need to understand The Wealth of Nations, where “Adam Smith provided an eloquent and convincing argument for free trade, instead of trade distorted by tariffs.” A 2016 poll of economists found 100 per cent opposed to their take on Trump’s trade policies, some adding comments like “stupid” or “Read Adam Smith.”

It is these pundits and economists who should read — or reread in the case of those who actually read The Wealth of Nations — Adam Smith. They might also reread what Trump has actually been saying, rather than what they assume he’s saying. If they did, they would see that Trump has been following Smith’s playbook. No political leader anywhere in the world is truer to Adam Smith’s prescriptions for free trade.

Smith is correctly viewed as championing competition and free trade, and opposing monopolies and tariffs. But Smith, one of the most unconventional thinkers of his time, was not the two-dimensional capitalist he’s often taken for. He also championed the use of tariffs in precisely the ways that Trump employs them.

When a foreign country engages in unfair trade through the use of tariffs that harm domestic exporters, Smith argues, retaliation is called for whenever it can bring the foreign country to heel, despite the initial cost of a trade war: “There may be good policy in retaliations of this kind, when there is a probability that they will procure the repeal of the high duties or prohibitions complained of. The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconveniency of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.”

Lawrence Solomon: Trump’s tariff war has one surprisingly strong supporter: Adam Smith

No political leader anywhere in the world is truer to Adam Smith’s prescriptions for free trade than Donald Trump

financialpost.com

....

Soap boxes are free. The employ the free energy supplied by gravity and the driver uses that energy and a steering wheel to guide that cart safely down the course. However even soap box carts have brakes.




...

As to why the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador might be reluctant to foreswear the advantages of inter-provincial trade controls, Churchill Falls comes to mind. Quebec might be able to offer an opinion.

...

Trump appears to be using tariffs to control behaviour. And, possibly, collect a bit of revenue that could advantage his citizens.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pros and Cons

Free trade is dead: it’s time for Britain to embrace tariffs

Greater openness is not making us more competitive. Perhaps we ought to be more open to a closing world

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain could learn from Trump’s tariff playbook

As the President has figured out, when you run large and persistent trade deficits you also have leverage

www.telegraph.co.uk

Don’t be fooled: Trump’s trade war victories are not what they seem

The US president cares most about the optics of the deal – Mexico and Canada have satisfied him with only minor concessions

www.telegraph.co.uk

Donald Trump has capitulated to Canada – for now

The US president risks overplaying his hand with threats toward America’s northern neighbour

www.telegraph.co.uk

Trump’s trade war exposes German carmakers to a ‘full-on storm’

Already suffering from a geopolitical crisis, major brands risk buckling under the strain of tariffs

www.telegraph.co.uk

Britain beware – Trump’s trade war will choke growth across Europe

Sir Keir Starmer must decide whether it’s worth cosying up to Brussels amid the looming threat of tariffs

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[quadrapiper]

Maybe someone here with more knowledge on this subject can shed some more light on this.

A few years back a person that I know who works in Real Estate in the GTA once told that that an immigrant from China can only legally bring with them 30k USD when they leave China to immigrant elsewhere. When I asked them how it was possible for them to come here (or the US) and buy a house in the GTA with that little money. They kind of laughed and said, why they smuggle it in of course, either through a shell company or gold or bank wires.

Anyone here know if the 30k USD amount when leaving China is correct?

Which seems a sort of bleed that "we" should ensure continues.

 

[foresterab]

Maybe someone here with more knowledge on this subject can shed some more light on this.

A few years back a person that I know who works in Real Estate in the GTA once told that that an immigrant from China can only legally bring with them 30k USD when they leave China to immigrant elsewhere. When I asked them how it was possible for them to come here (or the US) and buy a house in the GTA with that little money. They kind of laughed and said, why they smuggle it in of course, either through a shell company or gold or bank wires.

Anyone here know if the 30k USD amount when leaving China is correct?

I sure as heck don't know all the ins and outs but I have been told alot also depends on the context of the money coming into the country.

So if you are immigrating as an "investor class" immigrant which if I understand correctly was a minimum $100k CAD into a Canadian business then it makes sense to allow for large scale fund transfers as part of the financing. FINTRAC rules might apply - not a banker so don't know it all.

Real estate transactions...again makes sense for larger transactions to occur although FINTRAC rules might apply.

Some joke/make a habit of bringing in 9,900 CAD in cash, per adult each trip home as it's just below the declarable limit and over time ads up especially with multiple family members/trips. Folks also get caught doing this at customs due to having extra funds in their pocket tipping them over the limit so it's not always risk free but it's well established rules too.

Gold/jewelry/personal items...tough to value and some cultures place more emphasis upon this type of visual wealth than my WASP family does. A person with 5 golden bracelets on their arm...are they personal possessions or smuggling in 5 bracelets worth of gold? How does a customs officer prove intent or what they left the country with pre-trip?

Just know there are so many different ways to game the system under our current mis-mash of rules that some abuse them. Most Canadians are good about following most rules but I also think of how many people under declare values when cross border shopping so it's not just immigrants but maybe a symptom of our friendly, often lax but occasionally strict border checks.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Interesting bit of news.

If this does occur expect the CAD to be around 63-66 cents to the USD, if the USD Fed continues in its modest reduction of US interest rates.

A CAD at the level will mean that CDN produced products will on fire sale in the US, which is great for exporters but man for certain it will incur the wrath of Trump as the trade deficit will tilt even more in our favour. The mantra will be, 'Canada is artificially sinking its dollar so they can dump CDN products in the US'. Never mind that the US consumers would benefit from this because it would lower alot of their day to day necessities and help stretch their budget.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

BMO now sees the central bank slashing rates much more aggressively on this path. “Previously, we expected the Bank to cut two more times this year, leaving the terminal rate at 2.50%. Now, we’re forecasting 25 bp cuts at each meeting until October, pulling terminal 100 bps lower to 1.50%,” she forecasts.

Adding, “This means Canada-U.S. overnight rate spreads will push past -225 bps, testing the all-time extreme from 1997.”

The terminal interest rate is when central banks are projected to end their monetary cycle. In this case, it’s the amount of ease believed to bring the inflation rate to target.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Very real possibility he moves ahead with deal making designed to absorb all or parts of Canada into the Union.

You'll likely be dead of old age first.

 

[lenaitch]

If only we had diversified the risk to our national economy when we had the chance...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1886241634142040279

It doesn't detract from their argument, but a slight quibble with the caption; that is not a map of energy pipelines but oil pipelines. I don't know about western Canada but there are indeed gas pipelines that flow into central and eastern Canada.

 

[QV]

You'll likely be dead of old age first.

Perhaps. A common theme with Trump, he introduces a controversial subject in a broad sense and gets everyone talking first. Battle lines are drawn and a variety of arguments ensue for and against. He sits back and eggs it on (probably inwardly smirking) and watches the reactions. Then he solidifies his position and more details emerge. I don't see him letting this one go unless all his backroom advisors are against it.

 

[Brad Sallows]

So, once again, what is it you think Canada should be doing in the immediate term in response?

Start executing now on everything. People arguing that Canada is under threat for the next 4 years, and certainly people arguing "the relationship has permanently changed", can't credibly roll out the usual "by the time it's ready..." rhetoric to indefinitely stall.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Carney would be an excellent Minister of Finance -

He'd be an excellent BoC governor.

The chance of someone with some particular piece of experience in "finance" being an excellent Finance Minister is probably in the neighbourhood of the chance of someone with some particular piece of experience in "defence" being an excellent MND.

 

[KevinB]

Perhaps. A common theme with Trump, he introduces a controversial subject in a broad sense and gets everyone talking first. Battle lines are drawn and a variety of arguments ensue for and against. He sits back and eggs it on (probably inwardly smirking) and watches the reactions. Then he solidifies his position and more details emerge. I don't see him letting this one go unless all his backroom advisors are against it.

He doesn’t want Canada, it’s a net loss for Republicans. He wants Canada to act - so insulting sovereignty is one way to get Canadians to actually act on that.

I’m sure he also enjoys watching people lose their minds about nonsense.

He is a very cunning showman.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Right.

The starlink was for remote hard to reach communities.

So there's the possibility we'll still pay Starlink millions of dollars and the Canadians in remote communities' won't get any internet.

This is the danger of knee jerk reactions reaching for low hanging fruit.

When I muse rhetorically on things Canadian politicians might start in Canada to improve GDP growth, I'm being partly facetious. I know that if the politicians didn't have some established interests they don't want to upset, they'd already have moved on things like reducing internal trade barriers. They will hold off doing anything except "trade war!" as long as they can and keep making well-sounding noises as if they might behave otherwise; it is not really true that "everthing is on the table".

However, as Ford has demonstrated, f*cking over a bunch of powerless third parties who are not part of the club is always on the menu.

 

[Czech_pivo]

He doesn’t want Canada, it’s a net loss for Republicans. He wants Canada to act - so insulting sovereignty is one way to get Canadians to actually act on that.

I’m sure he also enjoys watching people lose their minds about nonsense.

He is a very cunning showman.

Well, lets by honest here - if being insulted publicly, day in and day out by our closest neighbour and ally lights/stirs whatever remains of our National Identity that resulted in a 1 million person armed forces during WWII to get off our soft, squishy ass and revitalise the CAF then I have ZERO issues with that.

 

[brihard]

He doesn’t want Canada, it’s a net loss for Republicans. He wants Canada to act - so insulting sovereignty is one way to get Canadians to actually act on that.

I’m sure he also enjoys watching people lose their minds about nonsense.

He is a very cunning showman.

How is it a net loss for Republicans? We have a TON of raw material resources- industries they tend to be quite favourable to.