• 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)

I'm curious how "Canada" is prepared to halt the alcohol ban when the PM admitted it's ultimately a provincial decision and BC already said hard no.
Booze bans were in response to sectoral tariffs.

If Carney is able to negotiate the sectoral tariffs down to the lowest tariff rate of any of Americas trade partners it might be enough for the provinces to get on board, however reluctantly.
 
More like setting a red line, a last chance for the US to get something productive out of talks.

A certain someone does like his wins, even the empty symbolic ones.
Yeah, if Trump goes ahead with these tariffs on the 19th, Carney is flat out saying there can be no further negotiations going forward, that Canada and Canadians will not give any more concessions or negotiate.

I almost hope we do not get a deal.
 
So problems. He doesn't control the booze bans. All it takes is a Eby or Fréchette or Ford to kibosh this right here and now. Problem two, even if he gets a deal, what does he do if trump renegs on it?
He can control the provinces though. You think they will keep the bans going if the feds threatened to cut provincial transfers?

Potentially they could, but it is much harder to explain to your constituents why you need to substantially raise taxes to pay for the province than it is to drop the ban.
 
The US booze ban can be lifted, shelves stocked, US happy, Cdn consumers don't purchase. Then ALL Cdns will be Nasty.
 
The US booze ban can be lifted, shelves stocked, US happy, Cdn consumers don't purchase. Then ALL Cdns will be Nasty.
Even U.S. Democrat lawmakers are noticing ...
... so some Canadiaans have already been nasty.

Meanwhile ....
... and the two main party leaders saying "yeah, supply management's not on the table (or doesn't have to be" as of this past March:
 
Even U.S. Democrat lawmakers are noticing ...
... so some Canadiaans have already been nasty.

Meanwhile ....
... and the two main party leaders saying "yeah, supply management's not on the table (or doesn't have to be" as of this past March:
I don't think supply management is on the table, I think how we adjust the quota is on the table.

Dairy producers should STHU about it, because as long as the Quota is on the table, they are fine.

Americans don't even use up their existing quota because the dairy refiners use their own stock, not American,so the quota could be a bazillion and it wouldn't be used up any more than it already is.

Unless the Americans get wise to this it's always a card Canada can play that will changed exactly nothing.
 
I don't think supply management is on the table, I think how we adjust the quota is on the table.

Dairy producers should STHU about it, because as long as the Quota is on the table, they are fine.

Americans don't even use up their existing quota because the dairy refiners use their own stock, not American,so the quota could be a bazillion and it wouldn't be used up any more than it already is.

Unless the Americans get wise to this it's always a card Canada can play that will changed exactly nothing.
Maybe, but there's an awful lot of the "give 'em something, dammit!" crowd on this side of the border that would be happy to see it end completely.
 
He can control the provinces though. You think they will keep the bans going if the feds threatened to cut provincial transfers?

Potentially they could, but it is much harder to explain to your constituents why you need to substantially raise taxes to pay for the province than it is to drop the ban.
LOL Cutting transfer payments, federal transfers would only last so long. The Feds need the original amount of money transferred from the provinces first. If that source dries up then the feds have no money. If that happens we see Canada as it it now not exist, then you see the current government kicked to the curb.
 
LOL Cutting transfer payments, federal transfers would only last so long. The Feds need the original amount of money transferred from the provinces first. If that source dries up then the feds have no money. If that happens we see Canada as it it now not exist, then you see the current government kicked to the curb.
It's more likely the provinces go to the SCOC and claim they are being unfairly punished by the federal government for something that is entirely within their jurisdiction.

I imagine the SCOC would side with the provinces.
 
Thanks for that - much appreciated.

The 50% tariffs being "a difficult pill for Canadians to swallow" in a political environment with little wiggle room still leaves enough wiggle room for something short of a "red line." That said, while it sounds like the unnamed business reps heard "red line," we'll see how Canada responds based on previous positions of not putting up with x.
 
Thanks for that - much appreciated.

The 50% tariffs being "a difficult pill for Canadians to swallow" in a political environment with little wiggle room still leaves enough wiggle room for something short of a "red line." That said, while it sounds like the unnamed business reps heard "red line," we'll see how Canada responds based on previous positions of not putting up with x.
We shall see, but with the globe and CBC hearing similiar things from their sources, who, I'm assuming, are different people, it does sound like Carney/Canada are viewing the tariffs on the 19th as a dealbreaker for all future negotiations.

What will happen, like I said, we shall see, but if it's true, good.
 
Back
Top