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

[The Bread Guy]

Ontario, or Michigan?

#SudburyCentrism enters the chat …

 

[lenaitch]

Call from federal department HQ in Ottawa to me in the 807 area code/Thunder Bay: can you drop off some paperwork to the Sioux Lookout office? I said anything's possible, and after more conversation, I had to educate them that it would be a 4-ish hour drive each way. Ottawa voice sheepishy tells me people in her office told her I should be able to drop it off on my way home from work. PS - they didn't know we had a Sioux Lookout office with a fax machine and everything

In another life, call from wire service in Toronto asking if I was covering a trial in Fort Frances. I told them we didn't have the staffing to send someone. Wire service person said he was told it was nearby - I told him it was about 4-ish hours each way.

At least Europe has the excuse of being way smaller and more densely populated than most of Canada's land mass for not getting it.

When working in Sioux Lookout, we would often get calls around 0830 from headquarters in Toronto looking for the boss, and not understanding that it is was only 0730 there.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

This gets interesting. Brian Lilley (Toronto Sun) points out that the Orange Man down south, also needs media distraction. Apparently his massive debt is really not going well with his own people. So having a spat with Canada provides a distraction.

Brian also offers up some other insights into the trade spat.

A quick summary prepared by my tired passed over Major, Claude:

Summary​

This is a solo commentary/vlog transcript from columnist Brian Lilley (Toronto Sun / brianlilley.com), recorded on a Friday, covering two main stories.

1. Canada–US Trade Deal Collapse​

• Lilley has written seven columns on this since talks broke down last week, and walks through his evolving analysis:
• Why talks collapsed: Verbal negotiations had Canada seeking to lower auto tariffs from 25% to a viable ~5–7.5%. The written text still had medium/heavy-duty trucks at 25%, prompting Canada to object — each side then blamed the other for last-minute changes.
• The "French language" dispute: Not about language rights per se — it was about discoverability of French/Canadian content on streaming platforms (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.) and a proposed 5% revenue levy into the Canadian Media Fund. The US said this wasn't their red line; their real objection was to the streaming tax.
• Sovereignty claims: Tied to USMCA/CUSMA provisions requiring notice if a party strikes a trade deal with a "non-market" country (e.g., China) — not the US dictating who Canada trades with.
• Trump–Ford feud: Triggered by Trump's Truth Social threat of 50% tariffs on autos/steel by June 1; escalated into personal insults and "Lake America" trolling.
• Political incentives: Carney has by-elections Monday (incl. Chicoutimi–Le Fjord, Quebec) — benefits from appearing tough on France/sovereignty. Ford has by-elections Thursday — benefits from fighting Trump/Carney. Trump benefits by distracting from a shaky bond market and $40T national debt, and can point to real gains in steel (+6.6%) and auto production (+12.9%) heading into midterms.
• Legal angle: Trump's Section 232 tariffs are seen as untouchable in court; Section 338 tariffs (1930s-era, untested) could go either way if challenged.
• Bottom line/his take: Real economic impact is modest (a couple tenths of a percentage point off GDP) — "not a war, a spat." He argues Canada negotiated from weakness rather than strength, and rejects both "cave to Trump" and "wait out the midterms" strategies.

2. CBC 9/11 Terminology Controversy​

• Warren Kinsella broke the story that a CBC internal memo instructed journalists not to refer to 9/11 as a "terrorist attack" without attribution.
• Backlash was swift and went international (New York Post, CNN, Fox, CBS, and commentary from Patrick Bet-David).
• Canada's Public Safety Minister (Gary Anandasangaree) issued a statement affirming 9/11 as "the deadliest terrorist attack in history."
• CBC's Head of Journalistic Standards (Brodie Fenlon/Basem Boshra, per the transcript) then walked back the attribution requirement, saying the language guide leak lacked context and caused unintended hurt.
• Lilley contrasts this with the Wall Street Journal's style guide, which permits calling 9/11 a "terrorist attack" on first reference outright — used to argue CBC's original caution was unwarranted.

Key Takeaways​

• Lilley's overarching view: all three politicians (Carney, Ford, Trump) are escalating rhetoric for domestic political gain rather than substance.
• He frames the trade rupture as a negotiating/communications failure by Canada, not an unresolvable structural conflict.
• He treats the CBC episode as a self-inflicted credibility wound, resolved only after major public and government pressure.

So, nothing new here. This opinion writer has held the same opinions for a very long time, and is consistent in his messaging. Lilley 101 if you wish.

This is a sign of a good opinion writer, but not proof of a valid opinion.

As an aside, the 9/11 CBC controversy seems rather a reach, regurgitating old news as red meat for the base, rather than offering anything constructive.