- Reaction score
- 7,186
- Points
- 1,360
MOD POST
Easy on the 'disloyal' accusations.
Thank you,
Bruce
CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)
- Thread starter Remius
- Start date
Easy on the 'disloyal' accusations.
Thank you,
Bruce
- Reaction score
- 7,218
- Points
- 1,160
Ask Albertans and it's got nothing to do with Trump. Sometimes you can only kick a dog so many times before it bites and runs away. Don't let your immense dislike for Trump blind you to reality.
- Reaction score
- 11,183
- Points
- 1,360
The US has had numerous fault lines.... they just settle them, one way or another....
Attachments
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 35,717
- Points
- 1,160
Our national gas lighting internationalist man baby's legacy:
Lorne Gunter: Trudeau policies undermine Canada's ability to endure threatened Trump tariffs
Of course, U.S. President Donald Trump is a bully who’s trying to take advantage of our weaknesses. But who made us so weak and vulnerable in the first place? The Trudeau LiberalsRemember when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there was “no business case” for building a pipeline, refinery and marine terminal to take Canadian LNG (liquefied natural gas) to Germany? And later he said the same about LNG to Japan?
Imagine if Canada had two LNG ports now, one on the East Coast to take gas to Europe and another on the West Coast to take more to Asian markets. The pain of any U.S. tariffs would be lessened.
And imagine if Trudeau hadn’t killed two oil pipelines — Northern Gateway and Energy East. Those could have taken Alberta oil to markets other than the U.S. If those pipelines already existed, then if Trump decides to make our oil so expense U.S. refineries don’t want to buy it, Canada would already have options.
And if Trudeau and Steven Guilbeault, the high priest of Trudeau’s eco-cult, hadn’t banned tankers full of Alberta oil from sailing off the West Coast, and hadn’t killed more than $300 billion in new convention oil and oilsands developments, perhaps we’d have more international markets and thus more flexibility in dealing with the Americans.
But because Trudeau, Guilbeault and the rest of the Liberals have done all they could in the past decade to sacrifice Canada’s energy industry on the altar of environmental extremism, 97 per cent of our oil exports now go to the U.S. So (no pun intended), Trump has us over a barrel. We have few good options to shelter Canada’s economy and standard of living from punitive American sanctions.
Of course, U.S. President Donald Trump is a bully who’s trying to take advantage of our weaknesses. But who made us so weak and vulnerable in the first place?
In addition to making us wholly dependent on American energy markets, their regulations, taxes and policies have lowered Canadian productivity drastically. They have slowed our economic growth until it is practically nonexistent.
Inflation, caused by their overspending, has made the cost of necessities soar and badly damaged our standard of living. Their insane immigration policies have lowered our per capital GDP for nearly three years in a row, while at the same time spiking housing prices and overburdening our health-care system.
And their signature policy — the carbon tax — has simply made life more expensive while doing little or nothing to reduce emissions.
Now, after all this Liberal-caused devastation, what is Trudeau’s response to Trump’s threat of 25 per cent tariffs on all Canadian goods? Buy French’s ketchup! French’s is made with Ontario tomatoes. Heinz uses American ones.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Trudeau actually cited the French’s ketchup alternative as an example of how Canadians might combat Trump’s tariffs. “Having Canadian consumers have alternatives to having to spend tariffs on American imports is part of how we make sure Canadians don’t bear undue costs around tariffs.”
Lorne Gunter: Trudeau policies undermine Canada's ability to endure threatened Trump tariffs
After limiting Alberta oil's access to non-U.S. markets, Canada must follow Danielle Smith's strategy focusing on diplomacy and border security
edmontonjournal.com
quadrapiper
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 617
- Points
- 1,040
Not sure if I'd say settled.
Well aware of Albertans grievances. If Albertans want to separate and join the US as Puerto Rico North there is a process they can follow to do so. That doesn’t mean the rest of us have to follow or enable that COA.
Don’t let your immense love for trump blind yours either.
Last edited:
you have to have it affect your own pocketbook first.
- Reaction score
- 24,554
- Points
- 1,360
The danger being the foreign interference/influence becoming irreversible before enough Canadians feel it in their wallet…
sad but true
- Reaction score
- 5,352
- Points
- 1,260
So Trump IS listening to someone then?Well…I mean, Canada’s official position is that there should be less oil and gas going out of Camada, not more. Japan doesn’t need Canadian O&G, Germany doesn’t need Canadian O&G. We know, because Trudeau told us so. Maybe the US is finally coming around to see the light that Trudeau told Asia and Europe already?
Czech_pivo
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,619
- Points
- 1,260
These pics of the dogs is just truly sickening - reminds me way to much of dogs being used on Jews in WWII.
- Reaction score
- 7,218
- Points
- 1,160
Fortunately, you only speak for yourself. Nobody else. You can presume to speak for Canada, but you don't.
Where did I say that? Lol.
You guys really do have arguments in your heads about stuff that isn’t said.
So let’s be clear then. Are you for or against US annexation of Canada?
the worst thing that will happen is be in disagreement with that line of thought. And we’ll be crystal clear on where we stand.
- Reaction score
- 7,218
- Points
- 1,160
Sorry, didn't realize you were using the Royal We, all this time.
I appreciate your attempt to try paint me into a corner.. Annexation is a loaded term. Depending on the reader/ speaker it typically means taking territory by force. It also means a transfer of territory by agreement, but most go with the former.
I'll reiterate for you again.
Certainly, I'm against annexation by force. I don't think anyone wants that. By agreement? That's up to Canadians to decide. I don't speak for them. Do I agree? I'd have to see what kind of agreement comes out of the years of negotiations between the two countries. It's not as simple as as yes or no.
What I am in favour of, as I've stated before, is a total economic union similar to the EU, without the gnomes of Brussels. The same sort of union posited by Kevin O'Leary. With the combined resources, R&D, skilled and professional trades, etc of an economical union, NA would be the dominant player of almost anything in the world. Nobody could challenge that. We've had years to watch what goes wrong with the EU, to avoid many of their pitfalls. If they can figure it out, I'm sure we can also.
It is not really painting you in a corner. It is Really a yes or no. Annexation as in the acquiring territory. As in becoming the 51st state.
It actually is a yes or no. I’ll make it easier. Should Canada remain a sovereign country?
The problem with that is that sort of bilateral union is impossible. It’s just another way to say annexation. Shared currency means US currency. Do you really think the US would agree to a joint peer to peer parliament with equal footing to decide on fiscal and immigration policy?
Except it’s an apple and oranges comparison with the EU.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,897
- Points
- 1,010
- Reaction score
- 9,236
- Points
- 1,160
Getting back to the issue of tariffs.
Canada was built on tariffs. In our case they were the same tariffs that Trump is contemplating - barriers to North South trade. And if you wanted to sell to Canadians you had to build in Canada. That was the basic premise up until Mulroney's Canada US Free Trade Agreement. Prior to that there were some limited tariff busting agreements, like the Autopact of 1965, that were based on Reciprocity.
A pair of good articles on tariffs and The National Policy:
www.theglobeandmail.com
...
Canada's tariff wall protected the rise of the Canadian banks, the CPR and the CNR, the Canadian Pacific and Allan Steamship Lines and contributed to the rise of Cunard and the Irving, Thompson and Weston family fortunes. It supported the rise of McLaughlin Motors at Oshawa, that became General Motors. It supported the Massey family and their tractor business (Massey, Massey-Harris, Massey-White and Massey-Ferguson).
My Canadian home town, Peterborough, Ontario, was home to General Electric, DeLaval, Westclox, Quaker Oats, Johnson and Johnson, Outboard Motor Corporation, Fisher-Gauge, and various Canoe Companies. The area around was scattered with dairies and cheese factories. One of Peterborough's premier tourist attractions is its hydraulic lift lock on the Trent-Severn Canal. All of those jobs were protected by the National Policy tariff walls.
Those jobs permitted the raising of families with 4 or 5 kids in single family dwellings, with one car, a cottage, a boat, a snow mobile and an abundance of fishing tackle and hunting gear - on one salary. Like as not the rifle or shotgun was made in Peterborough as well at Lakefield.
...
Do tariffs work? Ask Ontario.
...
PS the downtown was full of family owned businesses - barbers and tailors, shoemakers and taverns, hotels and furniture stores, drycleaners and service stations.
Canada was built on tariffs. In our case they were the same tariffs that Trump is contemplating - barriers to North South trade. And if you wanted to sell to Canadians you had to build in Canada. That was the basic premise up until Mulroney's Canada US Free Trade Agreement. Prior to that there were some limited tariff busting agreements, like the Autopact of 1965, that were based on Reciprocity.
A pair of good articles on tariffs and The National Policy:
Opinion: What if Trump’s tariffs are non-negotiable?
If the Donald Trump administration uses tariffs to de-integrate the North American economy, Canada will have no choice but to look to history and the future, and adapt
www.theglobeandmail.com
Loading...
www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca
...
Canada's tariff wall protected the rise of the Canadian banks, the CPR and the CNR, the Canadian Pacific and Allan Steamship Lines and contributed to the rise of Cunard and the Irving, Thompson and Weston family fortunes. It supported the rise of McLaughlin Motors at Oshawa, that became General Motors. It supported the Massey family and their tractor business (Massey, Massey-Harris, Massey-White and Massey-Ferguson).
My Canadian home town, Peterborough, Ontario, was home to General Electric, DeLaval, Westclox, Quaker Oats, Johnson and Johnson, Outboard Motor Corporation, Fisher-Gauge, and various Canoe Companies. The area around was scattered with dairies and cheese factories. One of Peterborough's premier tourist attractions is its hydraulic lift lock on the Trent-Severn Canal. All of those jobs were protected by the National Policy tariff walls.
Those jobs permitted the raising of families with 4 or 5 kids in single family dwellings, with one car, a cottage, a boat, a snow mobile and an abundance of fishing tackle and hunting gear - on one salary. Like as not the rifle or shotgun was made in Peterborough as well at Lakefield.
...
Do tariffs work? Ask Ontario.
...
PS the downtown was full of family owned businesses - barbers and tailors, shoemakers and taverns, hotels and furniture stores, drycleaners and service stations.
- Reaction score
- 7,218
- Points
- 1,160
Looking down the road, nuclear power could well be the big energy driver. With an explosion of nuclear power plants, the US is behind the 8 ball. They don't have much uranium. What they have is comparatively small deposits of low grade, on contested land uranium. The U.S. uranium industry can’t compete with the quantity and quality of uranium deposits internationally. They import almost all of it. Much of it from Canada, their largest supplier. 22% of 49 million pounds of it. They get it cheaper on the world market than they can produce it themselves. $35/lb from Canada vice $50 domestic.
With Trump saying they don't need anything Canada has, someone at the table should ask. "How's your uranium supply?"
With Trump saying they don't need anything Canada has, someone at the table should ask. "How's your uranium supply?"
- Reaction score
- 7,218
- Points
- 1,160
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 9,253
- Points
- 1,040
The "deficit" to which Trump refers is most likely the trade deficit - the negative side of an imbalance in the value of respective imports and exports between two countries. If so, the figure he mentioned is too high by about a factor of 6 or 7. Maybe there are some other imputed costs (eg. the value of Canadian military "freeloading") stuck in there by whoever feeds him information. Because countries don't have exclusively bilateral trading relationships, it's close to pointless to worry about bilateral trade deficits. Worrying about the net trade balance (ie. the sum of all bilateral balances) isn't much use either. The trade balance is just a defined number, and doesn't account for all money flows (eg. investment back into the country by those on the surplus side of a trade balance).
Suddenly fretting about the US being an unfriendly trading partner is foolish at best and transactionally partisan at worst. We've known from disputes over various matters (eg. softwood, agriculture) that the US is not a uniformly friendly trading partner. Recall that the Obama administration blocked Keystone XL, the first Trump administration approved it, and then the Biden administration cancelled a permit (one among Biden's flurry of executive orders, for those keeping score of executive orders). Canadian politicians and voters have been on notice for many years that getting oil and gas out of the interior of the country to ports on Canadian shores was a useful high-value long-term economic strategic aim.
I see Ford has decided the present turmoil isn't too severe to preclude opportunistically seeking to increase his "mandate". Selection and maintenance of the aim and concentration - he has failed, along with the federal Liberals, by dissipating resources into unnecessary battles which ought always to be avoided.
Those calling for Canadian unity now because they think their interests are about to be damaged should have made sacrifices earlier when it pleased them to privilege their regional interests over those of other parts of Canada.
There are still GDP-enhancing internal improvements to be made. A few have been talking about interprovincial trade, and a few about big projects. For some the threat is not too great to object to change (eg. new pipelines); I suppose their interests are not at risk and it is fair to criticize them for not being "team players" now. I can guess that if the tariff threat goes away, all the talkers will wipe their brows and stop talking and keep status quo. Until we see real and substantially valuable improvements to interprovincial trade and trade infrastructure and international trading arrangements/agreements, the tariff threat is a useful crisis/opportunity. To believe this is not less patriotic than sidelining the House for political advantage, calling a provincial election for political advantage, or proposing measures that would impose disproportionate costs on parts of the country. The difference is that to believe it is to seek net improvement after the time at which the tariff fight ends.
Suddenly fretting about the US being an unfriendly trading partner is foolish at best and transactionally partisan at worst. We've known from disputes over various matters (eg. softwood, agriculture) that the US is not a uniformly friendly trading partner. Recall that the Obama administration blocked Keystone XL, the first Trump administration approved it, and then the Biden administration cancelled a permit (one among Biden's flurry of executive orders, for those keeping score of executive orders). Canadian politicians and voters have been on notice for many years that getting oil and gas out of the interior of the country to ports on Canadian shores was a useful high-value long-term economic strategic aim.
I see Ford has decided the present turmoil isn't too severe to preclude opportunistically seeking to increase his "mandate". Selection and maintenance of the aim and concentration - he has failed, along with the federal Liberals, by dissipating resources into unnecessary battles which ought always to be avoided.
Those calling for Canadian unity now because they think their interests are about to be damaged should have made sacrifices earlier when it pleased them to privilege their regional interests over those of other parts of Canada.
There are still GDP-enhancing internal improvements to be made. A few have been talking about interprovincial trade, and a few about big projects. For some the threat is not too great to object to change (eg. new pipelines); I suppose their interests are not at risk and it is fair to criticize them for not being "team players" now. I can guess that if the tariff threat goes away, all the talkers will wipe their brows and stop talking and keep status quo. Until we see real and substantially valuable improvements to interprovincial trade and trade infrastructure and international trading arrangements/agreements, the tariff threat is a useful crisis/opportunity. To believe this is not less patriotic than sidelining the House for political advantage, calling a provincial election for political advantage, or proposing measures that would impose disproportionate costs on parts of the country. The difference is that to believe it is to seek net improvement after the time at which the tariff fight ends.
