I don't understand the level of ODD displayed by the Laurentian Elites, and those striving hard to join them. Trump's request was pretty simple: secure your border and beef up your military defenses. Canada should be doing this, anyway, whether Trump had asked or not. The fastest, easiest, and cheapest way we could have averted the tariffs would have been to make concrete steps to secure our border and increase defense spending before Trump's inauguration. (Maybe we should have done that instead of giving $60billion to foreign EV battery makers.) Instead, the little emperors in eastern Canada puffed up their little chests, stamped their little feet, and threw a temper tantrum like toddlers. The big fish in a small pond don't know how to act on the world stage, where they are small fries in a big pond.
It's the same ridiculous ODD reaction as the European leaders showed Trump in his first term when he warned them not to be dependent on Putin's oil and gas. They hovered over him with arms crossed and heaped scorn on him for daring to tell them how to govern their territories. But he was right, and Europeans have lived to regret not listening to Trump. Canadians are in a much more vulnerable position; we should learn something from history - right Dan?
Dan epitomizes all of the Laurentian Elites' blind spots. It is rich for easterners - those living roughly from Toronto to the Atlantic - to suddenly want Alberta to be a "team player." Nobody in the rest of Canada was a "team player" when Alberta wanted to develop overseas markets for our O&G sector. There wasn't a "business case" for it, according to the most economically illiterate leader in Canadian political history, remember? Nobody in the rest of Canada wanted anything to do with Alberta's "filthy oil" - except to take $13billion every year in wealth we created from it in equalization transfers. Eastern Canadians made Alberta a captive seller to American oil refineries, forcing us to take a steep discount to world prices for our resources; now they want Alberta to take another hit for "Team Canada" by raising export tariff money on the backs of Albertan oil in order to prop up eastern industries that will suffer from Trump's tariffs. Sorry, but Albertans have suffered enough economic abuse from eastern Canadians; if you do this, you will have a serious national unity crisis on your hands. I would not be at all surprised if you drive Alberta into Trump's arms to become the 51st state.
Dan got his Peloponnesian analogy completely wrong a month or so ago. A better fit would be this: Athens = the colonial masters in eastern Canada; Alberta and Saskatchewan = the satellite Greek colonies that Athens extracted tribute from; and the USA = Sparta. After robbing the colonies blind for decades, now the easterners want the colonies to pay more tribute to fight a stupid trade war with the USA. The presumption is astonishing in its level of ignorance.
Maybe "Team Canada" should start with this idea: Quebec could cut off their electricity going to the American NE. Cold turkey. A few weeks of rolling blackouts or worse might bring Trump around. Quebec could use some of the $13.6billion it gets from Alberta in equalization this year to fight the tariff war with Trump. But cutting off Alberta oil is stupid in the extreme, given that it is shipped back into Ontario via Line 5 and on to Quebec via Line 9. Line 5 traverses Michigan, so cutting off Alberta oil will entail cutting off Ontario & Quebec supplies, too. Doug Ford is still too stupid to understand this. It's to cry for.
The very first thing the Trudeau government did was fly down to Mar-a-Lago and promise a big package on drugs and the border. Which they promptly delivered.
You analysis predicts that would be the end of the matter; my analysis predicts that would prompt Trump to escalate.
Since the Trump tariff announcement, I have read several stories in Blacklock's Reporter about Canada's military procurement problems. It's an utter disaster; even the people in charge of monitoring it say the system is broken. If you think Trudeau has "promptly delivered" anything on the national defense file, you are straight-up delusional, Dan. It is delusional thinking like that, going on in Ottawa for many decades, that has gotten Canada into the pickle we are in now. Head-in-the-sand foolishness.
1) Trump has been complaining about Canada's lack of military spending for, literally, decades, too. And it is all connected in his mind.
2) If military procurement is such a mess, there's no reason to think procurements for border security will be any better. Trump has very good reason not to trust Trudeau's promises, and to wait for concrete action before changing his bargaining position.
Trump hasn't escalated anything, Dan. He is merely sticking to his original position. The reason Trump hasn't budged is that he knows Trudeau's promises aren't worth a pinch of coon poo. Trudeau has proven himself to be "two-faced" - not just to Trump, but to everyone he has made promises to: First Nations, women in politics, electoral reformers, Israel (e.g. his promise to cut off funding to UNRAW), etc., etc., etc. He's a lame duck and everyone knows it. He doesn't have the wherewithal to deliver anything he promises, anyway because he refuses to cancel the idiotic policies that impoverish Canada. Trump will wait for some concrete results to be delivered, not empty promises. Try harder, Dan.
False. His initial position was act on the border and drugs or be hit with 25% tariffs. He also "joked" about Canada becoming the 51st state. Trudeau then basically gave him exactly what he asked for and ... the "joke" turned into a serious proposition, while Trump continued to say he will hit us with 25% tariffs.
That's escalation -- exactly as I predicted and contrary to your analysis. You are wrong.
Dan, get real. Trudeau has delivered *nothing* on either the border or national defense. Nothing. Just the other day, a Canadian truck driver was nabbed in Arizona carrying $32million in cocaine. We still don't do any vetting, any spot-checking, any monitoring. Less than 1% of cargo containers are inspected. Alberta has beefed up surveillance of our border with Montana, but that isn't where most of the problem is. I think the RCMP bought a Blackhawk helicopter.
If you think these chronic problems can be fixed overnight, you have no concept of their scale and scope - especially given the characteristic foot-dragging and misdirection the eastern politicians prefer to engage in. It's a sick joke to say that we have satisfied Trump's initial concerns.
The 51st state joke turned out to be more prescient than expected because of the Laurentian Elites' reaction - basically driving Albertans into the arms of America for protection from their rapacious conduct. You're right, it isn't a joke anymore - but the problem is with Canada.
(Same with Greenland, by the way. The disdainful reaction of Denmark - "Greenland is not for sale" - was met in Greenland with, "Wait a damn minute! Maybe that's not such a bad idea..." Now Greenland is contemplating becoming the 52nd state. The arrogance of the Athenians toward the colonies is the problem. Learn from history!)
He delivered $1.3 billion of "nothing," Grant. That's a lot of nothing. And in response, Trump said nothing about the border and drugs. Because they are only pretexts
Partly it's a matter of emphasis. Trudeau made one announcement promising a first step, and then immediately went on the offensive, saber-rattling and whining. Trump is getting decidedly mixed messages from the Laurentian Elites. One day Ford wants to be America's best buddy; the next he is threatening to use Alberta's oil as leverage in a trade war.
"Team Canada" has to admit that Trump has us over the proverbial barrel, that we have no means of fighting back that won't hurt Canada much more than the USA, and beg forgiveness for being such poor neighbours on defense and border security. We needed to take immediate, concrete steps to fix our defense procurements system and our border inspections.
These concerns aren't "pretexts," Dan. Trump's concerns are nothing new. He has been buying pages in the New York Times for decades laying out his concerns with countries like Canada. American presidents since forever have complained about spending American treasure defending allies; Trump is merely the first one to do something about it.
Trudeau delivered an announcement. He's good at that, I'll grant you that, Dan. A joint task force on the boarder will take months to implement, though - and that's assuming it can be done without legislative changes while Parliament is paralyzed. So far, it is precisely "nothing." Maybe he should bring back the deliverology guru? (These are not serious people, Dan. Why do you take them so seriously?)
In case you hadn't noticed, Dan, no government business has been conducted in Ottawa for months and months, by order of the Speaker, because Trudeau refuses to turn over the green slush fund documents. Now he has prorogued Parliament. It is likely that the minute Parliament reconvenes in March the government will be defeated. Under these conditions, Trudeau *can't* promise anything substantial in the way of enhanced national defense or border security. Legislative changes are required, and no new legislation is moving forward. Even if Trudeau's promises could be believed, it isn't going to happen any time soon.
I told you a month ago that Trump wasn't going to fool around with his last term in office. He means business, and he wants prompt action. Flouncing around the late-night talk-show circuit and attacking Americans for not electing a female president is not the way to win hearts and minds in the Trump administration. The Laurentian Elites are not serious people, and Trudeau is the least serious of the bunch. Trump is correct to stick to his guns until there is concrete action in place. Because of Trudeau's ego, that will be a year or more later than it should have been.
I am impressed with your willingness to read the long tirades of the responder to your post Dan (love the graphic btw!).
One question, why do those who oppose your perspective have the need to write PARAGRAPHs on their opinion and how dumb the OP is. There appears to be very little curiosity on the others’ perspective. I am baffled. 😕 Why name call and put down a writer brave enough to put their original thoughts out there.
I am surely missing something…I bet Grant will tell me what is.
As for Panama, it is worth noting that when the USA sold the canal to Panama in 1979, the countries entered into a treaty which allows the USA to use military force to keep the canal system open and neutral. Trump has the right to stop it from becoming part of China's Belt and Roads initiative, whether the government of Panama requests it or not. The USA has ALWAYS reserved the right to use military force to keep international trade routes open. It is one aspect of foreign policy that never changes with the party in power.
Trump likes to throw ideas out there, to see if he gets any bites. With Greenland - and Alberta - he is getting nibbles. Greenland was essentially an American military base in World War II, so this so-called "threat" doesn't come completely out of left field.
Elsewhere in these comments I have pointed out that Trump isn't "threatening" Greenland at all. He is making an offer, and Greenland appears to be considering it seriously. They, too, seem to be fed up with their colonial masters to the east...
"Trudeau then basically gave him exactly what he asked for"? I don't think Trump was asking for a promise -- for words -- but that's what Trudeau specializes in.
Exactly. He didn't even acknowledge the border plan, which was always bizarre anyway, since it requires Canada to keep people from leaving. That's a tough thing to do, for geographic and rights reasons.
Canadians should be more concerned about the types of people coming into Canada. We are a haven for the world's worst bad actors. They flood into Canada unchecked after every foreign conflict.
Would you want to live next door to someone who is constantly inviting biker gangs into their home?
And, pretty well nothing. The Face Painter had no other responses except to stamp his feet and throw petty tantrums.
By contrast, my Premier has spoken with many current and incoming US officials and, yes, she has spoken with DJT, after which she advised we in Canada that DJT was intent on his foolish tariffs.
Now, you and your Laurentian ilk are criticizing my Premier for sticking up for Canada and, particularly, you criticize her for sticking up for Alberta.
With the greatest of respect, Mr. Gardner, to hell with your Central Canadian attitude that - as always - wants to use our oil as a weapon and as a revenue source but preserves your own industries from endangerment.
Tell you what: come back to us after - AFTER, I say - you have put tariffs on electricity exports and autos and AFTER you have prohibited exports of those goods. At that time, only, will it be appropriate to ask us to contribute in the manner you have used, abused and misused us greatly over the decades.
Well, perhaps, Sir, my comments were intemperate but that is the danger when we in Alberta have for many decades been portrayed as purveyors of "dirty oil," prohibited from developing export pipelines and so forth. Yes, you may be a straw man that is natural when you are a Central Canadian and we are aware of the CC desire to use Alberta and our resource as their own. If you really are not that fellow, good on you, but please, please recognize that we have been used, abused and misused for a long time.
The fact is, Dan, that pretty much anyone who pays attention - and I respectfully include you - knows that to say that "everything is on the table" particularly when the concept of bans on oil exports and tariffs on those oil exports have been bandied about is aware that our oil will be the first weapon that will be used. Therefore, "everything is on the table" means to most Central Canadians, "First we hit them with oil and then we see what else to do."
I have elsewhere on this comment board suggested that it be clearly stated that there be tariffs on electricity exports and autos and then bans on export of those things before we get to oil. The fact is that we in Alberta and our resource have been whipping boys for many decades so anytime that "everything is on the table" is offered up by Central Canada we know where we stand.
Now, as to your challenge about what should be done. First off, the federal government has to honestly and publicly recognize that we are in a very bad place and that we probably cannot avoid a whole lot. In other words, honesty is important. The feds have to this point been publicly dismayed but they have tried to put a pretty face and a smile on their efforts; the actual destruction that this will cause should be very publicly be made terrifically explicit. I am aware of the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies but that danger must be faced and the public must understand the danger and that the government is taking steps, ensuring EI is available, extra support is available, etc., etc.
Secondly, as commenters herein have noted, internal trade barriers are massive. Those barriers have been known for many years but your provincial politicians simply have ignored them. Clearing them up would not be a eliminate the DJT threat but it would help the economy.
Next, yes, we may well have to use our own tariffs and bans on exports of some goods but be aware that we in Alberta feel that we have been the first option of defense / offense for too many years. Decades, in fact. Therefore, use electricity exports and auto exports for purposes of tariffs and bans before you have expectations of we in Alberta.
These first two steps should be undertaken immediately no matter what. Next steps should be undertaken once we see what the tariffs actually are.
And, yet again as noted above, we have to take this whole thing very seriously but we also have to be realistic. I would expect that the actual implementation and resulting application of these tariffs will occur fairly quickly but also fairly unevenly. I would also expect that continuing to make representations to US officials at the national and state level will ultimately be what turns the tide for us but we have to recognize that that is a relatively long game.
I will offer one final suggestion but, again, this is in the nature of a "nuclear option." We can reasonably expect that any such tariffs by the US will dramatically affect our economy and cause our currency to crater. In turn, that will likely dramatically reduce Canadian travel to the US. Why not have the federal government do two things: first, put out a travel advisory that Canadians should avoid the US because it is a hostile state for Canadians; and, then, actually prohibit vacationing in the US. That should particularly hit Hawaii and Florida and various border cities that depend on Canadians for shopping. The point here is to try to bring economic pain to a variety of US businesses. Nuclear option and, as with all such, very dangerous.
I have attempted to offer some suggestions but, ultimately, this is going to be ugly and there is no real solution to be had.
But you are operating on an assumption without any evidence that I know of. Specifically: "...'everything is on the table' means to most Central Canadians, 'First we hit them with oil and then we see what else to do.'"
I'm a lifelong Ontarian and I have no idea where you get that from. I certainly don't believe it. And if you look at what Doug Ford said, you will see the Premier of Ontario's FIRST SUGGESTION was that Ontario should cut off electricity to the US. He later opened that up to "energy" and, later, explicitly said, yes, it should include oil and gas. But he was absolutely clear from the beginning that Ontario should lead by example -- meaning cut off Ontario electricity, Ontario car parts, etc.
In fact, I know literally no one here who has said anything like what you are suggesting "most Central Canadians" believe. If you had asked for my personal view, I would have told you: I think we should cut all major exports across the board. We would all suffer badly. And yes, given the that exports aren't evenly distributed, that would mean some provinces/regions would suffer more -- therefore we should pool resources, help those disproportionately hurt, and ensure the pain is shared equally among us all.
Oh, my dear Mr. Gardner! "We're one country. Let's act accordingly." What a laugh.
I asked you way back at the start where this call was for unity and cooperation when many countries came calling for Alberta O&G? When Alberta wanted pipelines to tidewater to develop foreign markets other than the USA? Yeah, the rest of Canada was dead-set against us. Some "one country." You are pushing an Ontario delusion.
You will have to forgive my cynicism when eastern Canadians who don't have a clue about the pain Albertans are feeling for this decade-long betrayal say, "we should pool resources, help those disproportionately hurt, and ensure the pain is shared equally among us." When an Albertan reads trollop like that, we are conditioned to hear, "we should siphon money out of oil-rich Alberta to support hard-hit industries in Ontario and Quebec." The bottom line is that federal politicians measure the "pain being felt" by the number of votes they can get by applying the salve of tax money. Since the vast majority of votes in this fine country are in the east, that's where the pain will be mitigated - with Alberta money, as usual.
You easterners who haven't noticed Alberta's pain ever before will just call us whiners and complainers when we ask to be made whole. That's not speculation, either. You don't have to surf twitter very long to see it in the comments coming from the east. Maybe the Toronto Star can do us all a favour and post people's feelings about Alberta on their front page, the way they published feelings for the "unvaccinated" in the time of covid.
Dan, you are full of high sentiment, but you haven't the first clue how politics actually works in Canada.
A genuine "Team Canada" approach would be for the eastern politicians to apologize to Alberta for screwing us over for so many decades, and offer to make us whole forthwith. E.g. by pre-emptively approving an Energy East Pipeline and a Northern Gateway Pipeline with an expedited timeline to completion. "We need your oil now, but we will pay you back in 5 years when you can freely access world markets!" Now that would be a deal I think a lot of Albertans could get behind - if it were binding. Getting Trudeau / Carney / Guilbault / Legault on board with that way of sharing the pain equally might pose more of a problem than you think.
I accept that you don't believe that, but, but, but ....
We have a history here in Alberta where we had to fight right to the UK Privy Council to be confirmed in our ownership of our resources - which all other provinces had but Alberta and Saskatchewan had Ottawa try and take them away from us. That is ancient history but it does color our views.
I will avoid history up until Trudeau 1 wherein he launched energy wars with us twice, changed the Income Tax Act to reduce our revenue and his Finance Minister (Marc Lalonde, if you recall) explained Ottawa's actions by stating quite clearly that Alberta had "too much power" and Ottawa had to change that.
Then, his son, the Face Painter, declared war anew with his various legislations aimed against Alberta (and please don't bring up TMX as that was a fiasco that blew up in his face) and now is quite interested in using our energy to benefit Central Canada.
Again, if these various characters said that they would first use autos and then electricity we might be more amenable but history has proven that our good intentions and actions are not met by similar from Central Canada.
So, to summarize, you and I have different perspectives. I accept that you are honorable in your intentions for Canada and I hope that you can accept that I and others like me are similarly honorable but that a different experience and history has colored our view.
Smith is not a good premier, period. She is prone to lying, and prone to following conspiracy theories. I am an Albertan, but believe I am a Canadian first. Trump is a real threat to our vastly better way of life, and we do not gain anything by sucking up to him.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse claiming that this is about Trump wanting these two things. Hitler just wanted to unite with Austria. Then he just wanted Czechoslovakia. Then he just wanted Poland. I’m not saying Trump is Hitler, but this is what happens when you appease.
Trump has no reputation for negotiating in good faith. Why would you assume that he is now?
This has nothing to do with "appeasement." This is nothing like the Third Reich or ancient Athens. You guys are completely misreading the situation. Canada should do what Trump is asking because it is better for Canada. A safer, more prosperous Canada will have knock-on benefits for America, which is what Trump wants; but if he doesn't get a safer and more prosperous Canada he's not going to invade. He's made it clear: he's simply not going to trade, which is every nation's sovereign right.
If that causes some or all provinces to beg for inclusion into the USA as the 51st state, that's on Canada's politicians. Given our history and geography, there is no reason Canada couldn't be the most prosperous and safe country in the world; we just don't have a functioning operating system. But the parochial small fries who benefit from the dysfunctional operating system don't want to make changes that will allow more competition, so we suffer.
Okay you’re seeing everything through an anti-elite lens and you’re making everything about that.
If we spend more on military and improve our border, we do it on our own terms, not on the US president’s. No one gets to threaten us and strong arm us. You can want a better military and border but we need to close ranks right now. Canadians decide for Canada.
"No one gets to threaten us." What planet do you live on? China threatens us all the time, and most of the time the Canadian government is only too happy to oblige. Any country can threaten us any time they want. We should be so lucky that the threats are only coming from Trump, and only conditioned on us refusing to do what is in our own best interests anyway. If you throw a tantrum and resist, your ODD and TDS are showing.
You still have no answer to the question of why we should accede to Trump’s demands when there is no reason to trust his good faith.
And any country that gives in to threats by a more powerful one isn’t a country at all. At that point pack it in. If a threat is all it takes, then we’re basically already at their mercy.
Buddy, I've answered that exact question at least 10 times already. You just aren't paying attention.
Canada should do what Trump, along with every other American President, has been asking America's allies to do for decades, because IT IS IN CANADA'S OWN INTEREST to secure our borders, not let inadequately vetted people from terrorist-infested regions into Canada, stop drug and sex trafficking, and significantly beef up our national defense.
Now, why don't you answer my question: Why all of this ODD and TDS, contrary to Canada's own interests, on your part? Refusing to do what is in your own interest just because someone you dislike asks you to do it is a sign of a mental problem.
Another point I have made numerous times on here, which you can't seem to get your pointy little head around, is that setting the terms of trade is the sovereign right of every country. Trump is merely exercising his right to trade with Canada, or not, on his terms. He is not issuing a "threat," he is giving fair warning.
(Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick explained the difference between threats and warnings in an article on "Coercion" way back in the 1960s. Dan isn't interested in these philosophical niceties, either, preferring to think that this trade dispute is somehow analogous to Athens threatening Melos with military annihilation if they don't pay tribute. Maybe that is why he attracts small minds like yours to his substack.)
"If we spend more on military..." we could have a once-respected military again. Instead our leaders, with the general support of a complacent citizenry, have practically neglected it for decades, allowing our military to decline. Trump is more brash in addressing issues, but he's far from the first to complain about this one.
I immigrated in 1970, when the Vietnam War and the US draft, both of which I opposed, were still active. Although I had completed alternative service and wasn't dodging the draft, my wife and I felt that becoming Canadians would ensure that the children we expected to have wouldn't have to deal with it. The immigration officer we met with made it clear that, even back then, Canada was in effect protected by the US. Do you think that officer was looking through an anti-elite "lens"?
As someone who has banged on about the need for greatly boosted military spending for years and years, I think I have standing to say: Yes. Let's do it. Immediately.
But, no, do not do it because it's what Donald Trump asks, because he would take that as nothing but an admission of weakness. And he would be right. Also, it would lack domestic support and therefore not be sustainable.
Split the issues: Boost the military budget, yes; and, yes, deal with Trump as a proud, sovereign nation that won't be pushed around.
Refusing to do what is in your own best interests just because someone you dislike asks you to do it is the sign of a mental problem, Dan. Children usually grow out of it when they get their first job.
This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not to spend money on the military is a completely different discussion than whether we fold like a cheap suit when Trump makes threats. We improve the military when and if we choose to, not in response to threats. If threats get him what he wants you better believe there will be more. So it’s just a question of whether we say no now or later.
The non-sequitur is that taking action (not just making promises) that is broadly understood to be beneficial, but doing it only after Trump applies pressure, means Canada is to "fold like a cheap suit".
I was going to make my own reply but then I read your marvelous response to Dan Gardner and - if I do comment - it will be far different as you have absolutely hit the nail on the head.
I was just skimming some of the comments, particularly those from the Trump apologist(s), and realized that perhaps this is the point of the exercise - sorting the real patriots from those who live in Canada for other reasons. The exercise is obviously divisive. In previous times we could more or less all muddle along together in our separate political spheres and occasionally bump into one another for commerce or around our kids' soccer games. Maybe that muddling is no longer an option.
If it were possible to continue muddling it would likely be the most Canadian thing possible for us to do so. Still, I'm curious if the current circumstances necessarily sharpen the contrast - not between left and right, or statists versus libertarians - but between those whose primary loyalty is with Canada and those who are either antipathetic or indifferent to the Canadian project.
Ken, you may be reading subtext into my post that I didn't intend. I'm from Alberta and I'd be the first to observe the awkward hypocrisy of a federal government suggesting export duties or an export ban on fossil fuels might give Canada important leverage over the Americans. That said, the 'eastern bastards, Laurentian elite' mercilessly exploiting Alberta also seems like an awkward fit with the truth.
To me, the truth is more nuanced. Sometimes Alberta resources have been exploited by the centre. Other times we have received what from almost any perspective would would look like an outstanding deal. After all, it's a rare thing for average incomes in the 'colony' to significantly exceed those of the 'metropole'.
As you likely guessed I identify as a Canadian patriot. I see no contradiciton between acknowledging Alberta has received a relatively bad deal from Ottawa over the last 9 years and believing Alberta should nevertheless align with the other provinces to administer to our American friends the best punch in the nose that we can. In a marriage sometimes we're givers, sometimes we're takers. My experience is that these relationships are rarely 'evensy-stevensy', but ebb and flow over time. I think membership in a country works the same way, and has the same rewards when we remain faithful and stop trying to keep score all the time.
Martin, I respectfully offer that we in Alberta who have lived through the "be a REAL Canadian" schtick for so many years that we see it for what it is: use, abuse and misuse Alberta and her resources so that Central Canada need not use it's capital. I respectfully submit that if we in Alberta really thought that you actually would put skin in the game then we would think differently.
Please allow me a thought exercise. Instead of considering using Alberta's oil as an initial bargaining chip why not have as a first bargaining chip Quebec and Ontario's hydro exports? What about Ontario's auto exports? Yes, I know that "everything is on the table" but why has the "popular" thought been on the use of our oil resources?
AFTER you put export tariffs on electricity and autos and AFTER you ban the export of electricity and autos, then come talk to us about the use of oil. I expect that at that point you will find us much more amenable because at that point you would have proven - for the first time - that Central Canada is willing to walk the walk instead of only talking the talk.
That's true, Dan, but it is a little like saying, "First I'll toss $10 into the pot; then when that has no effect, you toss $1million into the pot and we'll call it an even sacrifice."
Ken, you may be reading subtext into my post that I didn't intend. I'm from Alberta and I'd be the first to observe the awkward hypocrisy of a federal government suggesting export duties or an export ban on fossil fuels might give Canada important leverage over the Americans. That said, the 'eastern bastards, Laurentian elite' of Alberta being mercilessly exploited also seems like an awkward fit with the truth.
To me, the truth is more nuanced. Sometimes Alberta resources have been exploited by the centre. Other times we have received what from almost any perspective would would look like an outstanding deal. After all, it's a rare thing for average incomes in the 'colony' to significantly exceed those of the 'metropole'.
As you likely guessed I identify as Canadian patriot. I see no contradiciton between acknowledging Alberta has received a relatively bad deal from Ottawa over the last 9 years and believing Alberta should nevertheless align with the other provinces to administer to our American friends the best punch in the nose that we can. In a marriage sometimes we're givers, sometimes we're takers. My experience is that these relationships are rarely 'evensy-stevensy', but ebb and flow over time. I think membership in a country works the same way, and has the same rewards when we remain faithful and stop trying to keep score all the time.
Ken, do you realize what you are arguing? You told me you thought all us central Canadians wanted to embargo oil first because the pain would fall on the west, and only later would we consider embargoing things that hurt us. I showed you that's not true. (The Premier of Ontario's first suggestion was to cut Ontario hydro.)
Now here you making the very argument the same argument, only reversed -- in other words, you are making the argument you accused central Canadian of making but reversed to favour the west.
How about this: Let's all do this together. We're one country. Let's act like it. Agreed?
Dan, you are assuming that the playing field is level to begin with. It isn't. It hasn't been for decades. Estimates vary, but between $13billion and $20billion in wealth created in Alberta is transferred and spent every year in other parts of Canada - mostly in Quebec to win votes. "Team Canada" has been abusing Alberta for decades, not only by taking our wealth without the slightest prospect of reciprocation, but by hampering our attempts to generate even more wealth. Alberta has made all of the sacrifices we should be expected to make for the benefit of the east decades before this trade dispute was a twinkle in Trump's eye. Asking Alberta to make by far the biggest FURTHER sacrifice (because central Canada squandered our international goodwill that could have been purchased with Alberta wealth) is not my idea of everyone pulling together equally.
My advice: take the equalization payments Alberta is already giving eastern, and fight your cherished trade war with those funds.
I must respectfully note that I do not see the inconsistency. That doesn't mean that it isn't there but, rather, that I don't see it (I do wear glasses, so ...). Of course, that may mean that my commentary should be ignored in it's entirety, but ...
I would note that Winston Churchill spoke on consistency in many ways but, among other things, he made two points:
"It is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose - you must be right."
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Please don't think that I compare myself to Churchill or that he justifies any inconsistency I might have exhibited. Rather, I simply take refuge in quotes that allow me to be inconsistent and not examine that inconsistency (if it exists).
The premier of Alberta was elected to defend Alberta’s interests. Likewise the premiers of the other provinces have been elected to defend their provinces’ respective interests. Theoretically, there exists a Canadian federal government to do likewise for the Canadian federation as a whole.
In practice, the federal government exists to distribute equalization payments between provinces. They are not good at defending the country in nationalistic terms.
Sorry Dan this is a really bad take at a time Trudeau and Guilbeault’s chickens are coming home to roost. Alberta is done with the Laurentian bull and if there isn’t an election soon then the Clarity Act might come into play.
If you think the issue we need to focus on is any Canadian politician, or the "Laurentian elite," or any other petty crap, then I'm afraid you are demonstrating why the very existence of this country is in grave danger.
The "Laurentian elite" is a reality we live with. It might be fairly called crap, but the pile is too big to be called petty. Canada is still one country despite it, not because of it. Having a PM who actually says there's no core identity is clear evidence of the arrogance of that elite.
1) I never discussed Alberta or any province/region in my posts or with you. 2) I want and expect retaliatory sanctions on the United States would include car parts and electricity, and lots more, which will hammer my province badly. 3) My hope is that Canadians together share in the pain and pool resources to help those most affected. 4) Now you are simply making up shit to attack me with because that's what you do. Always. With clocklike predictability.
You are championing a trade war that will necessarily have a hugely disproportionate impact on Alberta. It will lead to a national unity crisis, as Danielle Smith notes. Your criticism of Smith not being a team player, and your failure to address the problem of national unity, tells the reader all they need to know about where your concerns truly lie, Dan. I just wish you would stop being disingenuous about it.
Grant: I apologize. I broke my rule and tried to engage you in good faith. I know from past experience with you that if I were to write, say, "Hitler was bad" you would find some way to accuse me of harbouring an irrational hatred of koala bears or hiding kidnapped babies in my basement. My mistake. Won't happen again.
Grant, I'm a western conservative from Red Deer, and I think what Dan wrote rings true. I dislike Trudeau as much as most, and am delighted the country has passed peak-woke by many years. However, my loyalties are also clear. I place the needs of my country before the much narrower, short-term interests of my province. I gather you disagree, and imagine we might hitch our wagon to whatever national jurisdiction offers us the best deal?
My preference would be for an independent, sovereign Alberta. And I'd take Saskatchewan and north-central B.C., too. But being the 51st state isn't a terrible Plan B. Much better than the status quo.
Your excellent points plus: Do Albertans really think that appeasement works with people like Trump? Will it end when you give him what he wants today? No damn chance.
I'm a grounded western libertarian; you are an eastern progressive with TDS. Of course I'm going to disagree with you about almost everything in the political realm, "with clockwork predictability." You score no brownie points for making *that* observation, Dan.
You seem to be unaccustomed to and shocked by political disagreement. You need to get out more, maybe.
It’s not Trump derangement syndrome to notice that Trump has never once negotiated in good faith. All of your arguments assume some special trustworthy, reasonable version of Trump suddenly manifesting. You can’t negotiate with terrorists. He is figuratively holding our economy hostage and demanding a million in unmarked bills. Why do you think giving him a million leads to a safely returned economy? When has he ever been honest or trustworthy ever in his life?
Apropos of nothing but better times, that opening line "These Are The Times That Try Men's Souls," leads the Kingston Trio's splendid tune "MTA" out of 1962(?) LP - not even cassette - but right now is currently available with the visuals on U-Tube for free and it's still a great song. Always wondered where they got that.line though. 1962 the atmospheric lead levels were 300 times - that's not percent - what the were in the middle ages from car and diesel exhaust - which might explain a few things. Higher than background during the Roman Empire when they used lead foe everything including water pipes.
Whether or not the withered tangerine goes through with any of this, Canada has to take this very seriously and really reassess its relationship with the yanks. Whatever the intentions behind the bombast and bloviation, remember that it’s issuing from the rancid mouth of a man who is two days from becoming the actual president of the United States. That’s a very big deal. That the Americans voted him in and allow him and his enablers to waltz into power is a wake-up call for Canada. There are much smaller and less well endowed countries who suffer much less from the delusion that the US is their friendly uncle and treat it instead as a constant threat. Like having a pet tiger…you don’t let it play with the kids unsupervised…
Canada and Canadians have got to start treating the US like Eastern European countries treat Russia, the tiger is in the house and he’s hungry.
The question right wing party’s around the world need to ask themselves, and that voters need to ask of right wing party’s is a simple one. Will they prioritise the needs of their nation over the whims of an American Nationalist and his online supporters
As an American, I'll be honest: I kind of like the idea of Canada joining the US even if I dislike the tactics used. I think both sides would mostly gain if we were to join together. Yes, some serious discussion will occur about what happens to Canadian healthcare and such, but the increase in wealth and mobility to both countries would be incredibly positive. If we could come to a compromise of some sort of establishing an Amerizone where we had free immigration and tariff-free trade but political autonomy for both countries, that would be fantastic. Again, dislike the tactics, but like the potential ideal outcome (which, yes, is unlikely).
Fair enough. It's not an unreasonable discussion. And flattering! But when the subject is raised attached to an "or else," the natural response -- of any human being, whatever their nationality -- is to curl one's fingers into a fist.
What on earth could Canada gain? A healthcare system more betoken than theirs, u limited guns, denial of climate change; a broken education system and a theocracy. I’m sure they will come running.
Yes, that would absolutely also accomplish it, and I would be for it. But some folks are going to be squeamish about that for nationalist/Trumpy reasons. Second best thing would be an "Amerizone". Might be more acceptable if it preserves each country's autonomy for the most part and maybe if we could somehow frame it as nationalist. Third best thing would be one country absorbing/joining the other. That last one would be messy and very politically uncomfortable for the subsumed entity, but would accomplish that end goal. But, yes, shout out to Caplanian free trade and open immigration as the best solution.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail today about why this would be unworkable—I found it persuasive. Tell me what you think: https://apple.news/AgipOT4kTRVGrqEPFKDlnkQ
Unfortunately, It's pay walled, and I can't get to it. All I can say is I would be surprised if an economic union would be unworkable since you see a (albeit highly imperfect) form of this in the EU. The US is also an example of a union of relatively independent and diverse governments and economies. Maybe it's difficult or has potential issues, but unworkable seems like a strong word. That said, I was open to reading and changing my mind on that. Oh well.
The gist of it was that what makes the EU possible is that countries give up a bit of their sovereignty to the EU “supranational” government. This works when it is a bunch of countries, but with Canada and the US you would be asking the US to put itself equally under the “North American Council” or whatever it might be named.
The argument is that either the US would put itself on an equal footing with Canada as a member nation or Canada would be the junior partner, putting itself under US rule. Since the former seems very unlikely, the only way to do it would be for Canada to subject itself to some degree of rule by the US.
Huh, weird, not the argument I expected. I would think that's definitely more of a political will issue rather than an implementation problem, but I could see how that could cause an issue if no one wants an intermediary entity to submit to and could cause the deal to collapse. Not sure how that would play out in reality.
A recent article circulating on twitter suggests that interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians the equivalent of a 21% tariff on our own goods and services. Canadian politicians aren't even capable of sorting out our own internal trade problems, but they want to sabre-rattle on trade against Trump. They could almost neutralize the effect of Trump's 25% tariffs just by making Canada a true free trade zone, but they won't do it because they each want to control their own little economies so they can bestow favours on friends and feel good about it. The Laurentian Elites would rather be big fish in a small pond than small fries in a big pond. And that's what makes Canada such a prime target for a hostile takeover. Except that more and more shareholders in Canada Corp. are willing to take the buy-out at this point.
Are these really the parochial imbeciles you really want handling trade relations with Trump?
"In a country where french immersion is the ‘wink wink’ of uppity schoolyard moms and a Nordiques sweater gets you a big high five in every province, how long would it take a Canadian NHL Commissioner to give the Quebec Nordiques back to Quebec City? It’s a no brainer. QC already has a state of the art arena, the fan base and a world class regional rivalry with the Habs." https://trkingston.substack.com/p/a-canadian-nhl-commissioner-would
Today, Ford said he is prepared to fight a tariff war with Trump by spending tens of billions of dollars, "with the help of Ottawa." Where does Ford think Ottawa gets its tariff-fighting money from, if not from Ontarians? Oh, right, he expects Ottawa to support Ontario's tariff war using Alberta's money. Seems the cat is out of the bag now...
Europe shot itself in the foot with Russian gas; US is about to do the same with Canadian crude. I'm sympathetic to Danielle Smith for wanting a 'carve out' for Alberta, but if Americans insist on playing with guns...
If Trump weren't a buffoon, he would have presented his demands privately and our obsequious political class would have done their best to meet them. That's what allies are for.
It's not too late to take matters behind closed doors, so why should Canadians take him seriously?
I don't know if Canadians should feel disrespected. I don't consider Trump to be a serious politician or leader. He is as subservient to Zionism and the US Deep State as Harris would've been, and will do as he's told. At some point, he will be told to stop creating mountains out of molehills. There are actual geopolitical challenges for the US to address, and Canada is not one of them.
I would like our politicians to grow a backbone and stand up for the country, but that's too much to ask. There will be more pushback from Canadians because of Trump's antics, and that is as it should be. Where is the pushback from Americans who value our relationship?
I don't understand the level of ODD displayed by the Laurentian Elites, and those striving hard to join them. Trump's request was pretty simple: secure your border and beef up your military defenses. Canada should be doing this, anyway, whether Trump had asked or not. The fastest, easiest, and cheapest way we could have averted the tariffs would have been to make concrete steps to secure our border and increase defense spending before Trump's inauguration. (Maybe we should have done that instead of giving $60billion to foreign EV battery makers.) Instead, the little emperors in eastern Canada puffed up their little chests, stamped their little feet, and threw a temper tantrum like toddlers. The big fish in a small pond don't know how to act on the world stage, where they are small fries in a big pond.
It's the same ridiculous ODD reaction as the European leaders showed Trump in his first term when he warned them not to be dependent on Putin's oil and gas. They hovered over him with arms crossed and heaped scorn on him for daring to tell them how to govern their territories. But he was right, and Europeans have lived to regret not listening to Trump. Canadians are in a much more vulnerable position; we should learn something from history - right Dan?
Dan epitomizes all of the Laurentian Elites' blind spots. It is rich for easterners - those living roughly from Toronto to the Atlantic - to suddenly want Alberta to be a "team player." Nobody in the rest of Canada was a "team player" when Alberta wanted to develop overseas markets for our O&G sector. There wasn't a "business case" for it, according to the most economically illiterate leader in Canadian political history, remember? Nobody in the rest of Canada wanted anything to do with Alberta's "filthy oil" - except to take $13billion every year in wealth we created from it in equalization transfers. Eastern Canadians made Alberta a captive seller to American oil refineries, forcing us to take a steep discount to world prices for our resources; now they want Alberta to take another hit for "Team Canada" by raising export tariff money on the backs of Albertan oil in order to prop up eastern industries that will suffer from Trump's tariffs. Sorry, but Albertans have suffered enough economic abuse from eastern Canadians; if you do this, you will have a serious national unity crisis on your hands. I would not be at all surprised if you drive Alberta into Trump's arms to become the 51st state.
Dan got his Peloponnesian analogy completely wrong a month or so ago. A better fit would be this: Athens = the colonial masters in eastern Canada; Alberta and Saskatchewan = the satellite Greek colonies that Athens extracted tribute from; and the USA = Sparta. After robbing the colonies blind for decades, now the easterners want the colonies to pay more tribute to fight a stupid trade war with the USA. The presumption is astonishing in its level of ignorance.
Maybe "Team Canada" should start with this idea: Quebec could cut off their electricity going to the American NE. Cold turkey. A few weeks of rolling blackouts or worse might bring Trump around. Quebec could use some of the $13.6billion it gets from Alberta in equalization this year to fight the tariff war with Trump. But cutting off Alberta oil is stupid in the extreme, given that it is shipped back into Ontario via Line 5 and on to Quebec via Line 9. Line 5 traverses Michigan, so cutting off Alberta oil will entail cutting off Ontario & Quebec supplies, too. Doug Ford is still too stupid to understand this. It's to cry for.
The very first thing the Trudeau government did was fly down to Mar-a-Lago and promise a big package on drugs and the border. Which they promptly delivered.
You analysis predicts that would be the end of the matter; my analysis predicts that would prompt Trump to escalate.
He escalated. You are wrong.
Since the Trump tariff announcement, I have read several stories in Blacklock's Reporter about Canada's military procurement problems. It's an utter disaster; even the people in charge of monitoring it say the system is broken. If you think Trudeau has "promptly delivered" anything on the national defense file, you are straight-up delusional, Dan. It is delusional thinking like that, going on in Ottawa for many decades, that has gotten Canada into the pickle we are in now. Head-in-the-sand foolishness.
You just changed the subject from border security to military.
1) Trump has been complaining about Canada's lack of military spending for, literally, decades, too. And it is all connected in his mind.
2) If military procurement is such a mess, there's no reason to think procurements for border security will be any better. Trump has very good reason not to trust Trudeau's promises, and to wait for concrete action before changing his bargaining position.
Trump hasn't escalated anything, Dan. He is merely sticking to his original position. The reason Trump hasn't budged is that he knows Trudeau's promises aren't worth a pinch of coon poo. Trudeau has proven himself to be "two-faced" - not just to Trump, but to everyone he has made promises to: First Nations, women in politics, electoral reformers, Israel (e.g. his promise to cut off funding to UNRAW), etc., etc., etc. He's a lame duck and everyone knows it. He doesn't have the wherewithal to deliver anything he promises, anyway because he refuses to cancel the idiotic policies that impoverish Canada. Trump will wait for some concrete results to be delivered, not empty promises. Try harder, Dan.
False. His initial position was act on the border and drugs or be hit with 25% tariffs. He also "joked" about Canada becoming the 51st state. Trudeau then basically gave him exactly what he asked for and ... the "joke" turned into a serious proposition, while Trump continued to say he will hit us with 25% tariffs.
That's escalation -- exactly as I predicted and contrary to your analysis. You are wrong.
Dan, get real. Trudeau has delivered *nothing* on either the border or national defense. Nothing. Just the other day, a Canadian truck driver was nabbed in Arizona carrying $32million in cocaine. We still don't do any vetting, any spot-checking, any monitoring. Less than 1% of cargo containers are inspected. Alberta has beefed up surveillance of our border with Montana, but that isn't where most of the problem is. I think the RCMP bought a Blackhawk helicopter.
If you think these chronic problems can be fixed overnight, you have no concept of their scale and scope - especially given the characteristic foot-dragging and misdirection the eastern politicians prefer to engage in. It's a sick joke to say that we have satisfied Trump's initial concerns.
The 51st state joke turned out to be more prescient than expected because of the Laurentian Elites' reaction - basically driving Albertans into the arms of America for protection from their rapacious conduct. You're right, it isn't a joke anymore - but the problem is with Canada.
(Same with Greenland, by the way. The disdainful reaction of Denmark - "Greenland is not for sale" - was met in Greenland with, "Wait a damn minute! Maybe that's not such a bad idea..." Now Greenland is contemplating becoming the 52nd state. The arrogance of the Athenians toward the colonies is the problem. Learn from history!)
He delivered $1.3 billion of "nothing," Grant. That's a lot of nothing. And in response, Trump said nothing about the border and drugs. Because they are only pretexts
https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/justin-trudeau-says-border-issues-were-clear-win-for-donald-trump-but-also-for-canada/article_f09ba78e-ced7-11ef-acab-f36170f70d7a.html
Partly it's a matter of emphasis. Trudeau made one announcement promising a first step, and then immediately went on the offensive, saber-rattling and whining. Trump is getting decidedly mixed messages from the Laurentian Elites. One day Ford wants to be America's best buddy; the next he is threatening to use Alberta's oil as leverage in a trade war.
"Team Canada" has to admit that Trump has us over the proverbial barrel, that we have no means of fighting back that won't hurt Canada much more than the USA, and beg forgiveness for being such poor neighbours on defense and border security. We needed to take immediate, concrete steps to fix our defense procurements system and our border inspections.
These concerns aren't "pretexts," Dan. Trump's concerns are nothing new. He has been buying pages in the New York Times for decades laying out his concerns with countries like Canada. American presidents since forever have complained about spending American treasure defending allies; Trump is merely the first one to do something about it.
Trudeau delivered an announcement. He's good at that, I'll grant you that, Dan. A joint task force on the boarder will take months to implement, though - and that's assuming it can be done without legislative changes while Parliament is paralyzed. So far, it is precisely "nothing." Maybe he should bring back the deliverology guru? (These are not serious people, Dan. Why do you take them so seriously?)
In case you hadn't noticed, Dan, no government business has been conducted in Ottawa for months and months, by order of the Speaker, because Trudeau refuses to turn over the green slush fund documents. Now he has prorogued Parliament. It is likely that the minute Parliament reconvenes in March the government will be defeated. Under these conditions, Trudeau *can't* promise anything substantial in the way of enhanced national defense or border security. Legislative changes are required, and no new legislation is moving forward. Even if Trudeau's promises could be believed, it isn't going to happen any time soon.
I told you a month ago that Trump wasn't going to fool around with his last term in office. He means business, and he wants prompt action. Flouncing around the late-night talk-show circuit and attacking Americans for not electing a female president is not the way to win hearts and minds in the Trump administration. The Laurentian Elites are not serious people, and Trudeau is the least serious of the bunch. Trump is correct to stick to his guns until there is concrete action in place. Because of Trudeau's ego, that will be a year or more later than it should have been.
Sure, Grant. Now tell me how it's all Trudeau's fault that poor Donald feels compelled to threaten Panama and Denmark.
I am impressed with your willingness to read the long tirades of the responder to your post Dan (love the graphic btw!).
One question, why do those who oppose your perspective have the need to write PARAGRAPHs on their opinion and how dumb the OP is. There appears to be very little curiosity on the others’ perspective. I am baffled. 😕 Why name call and put down a writer brave enough to put their original thoughts out there.
I am surely missing something…I bet Grant will tell me what is.
As for Panama, it is worth noting that when the USA sold the canal to Panama in 1979, the countries entered into a treaty which allows the USA to use military force to keep the canal system open and neutral. Trump has the right to stop it from becoming part of China's Belt and Roads initiative, whether the government of Panama requests it or not. The USA has ALWAYS reserved the right to use military force to keep international trade routes open. It is one aspect of foreign policy that never changes with the party in power.
Trump likes to throw ideas out there, to see if he gets any bites. With Greenland - and Alberta - he is getting nibbles. Greenland was essentially an American military base in World War II, so this so-called "threat" doesn't come completely out of left field.
Elsewhere in these comments I have pointed out that Trump isn't "threatening" Greenland at all. He is making an offer, and Greenland appears to be considering it seriously. They, too, seem to be fed up with their colonial masters to the east...
"Trudeau then basically gave him exactly what he asked for"? I don't think Trump was asking for a promise -- for words -- but that's what Trudeau specializes in.
Exactly. He didn't even acknowledge the border plan, which was always bizarre anyway, since it requires Canada to keep people from leaving. That's a tough thing to do, for geographic and rights reasons.
Canadians should be more concerned about the types of people coming into Canada. We are a haven for the world's worst bad actors. They flood into Canada unchecked after every foreign conflict.
Would you want to live next door to someone who is constantly inviting biker gangs into their home?
Sure, the Face Painter went south. And ........ ?
And, pretty well nothing. The Face Painter had no other responses except to stamp his feet and throw petty tantrums.
By contrast, my Premier has spoken with many current and incoming US officials and, yes, she has spoken with DJT, after which she advised we in Canada that DJT was intent on his foolish tariffs.
Now, you and your Laurentian ilk are criticizing my Premier for sticking up for Canada and, particularly, you criticize her for sticking up for Alberta.
With the greatest of respect, Mr. Gardner, to hell with your Central Canadian attitude that - as always - wants to use our oil as a weapon and as a revenue source but preserves your own industries from endangerment.
Tell you what: come back to us after - AFTER, I say - you have put tariffs on electricity exports and autos and AFTER you have prohibited exports of those goods. At that time, only, will it be appropriate to ask us to contribute in the manner you have used, abused and misused us greatly over the decades.
Ken: You condemn what I want to do. And you condemn me. So let me ask you a question: What do I want to do? Can you summarize?
Because your comments suggest to me you don't actually know. You are simply making some giant assumptions and pinning my face on that straw man.
Well, perhaps, Sir, my comments were intemperate but that is the danger when we in Alberta have for many decades been portrayed as purveyors of "dirty oil," prohibited from developing export pipelines and so forth. Yes, you may be a straw man that is natural when you are a Central Canadian and we are aware of the CC desire to use Alberta and our resource as their own. If you really are not that fellow, good on you, but please, please recognize that we have been used, abused and misused for a long time.
The fact is, Dan, that pretty much anyone who pays attention - and I respectfully include you - knows that to say that "everything is on the table" particularly when the concept of bans on oil exports and tariffs on those oil exports have been bandied about is aware that our oil will be the first weapon that will be used. Therefore, "everything is on the table" means to most Central Canadians, "First we hit them with oil and then we see what else to do."
I have elsewhere on this comment board suggested that it be clearly stated that there be tariffs on electricity exports and autos and then bans on export of those things before we get to oil. The fact is that we in Alberta and our resource have been whipping boys for many decades so anytime that "everything is on the table" is offered up by Central Canada we know where we stand.
Now, as to your challenge about what should be done. First off, the federal government has to honestly and publicly recognize that we are in a very bad place and that we probably cannot avoid a whole lot. In other words, honesty is important. The feds have to this point been publicly dismayed but they have tried to put a pretty face and a smile on their efforts; the actual destruction that this will cause should be very publicly be made terrifically explicit. I am aware of the danger of self-fulfilling prophecies but that danger must be faced and the public must understand the danger and that the government is taking steps, ensuring EI is available, extra support is available, etc., etc.
Secondly, as commenters herein have noted, internal trade barriers are massive. Those barriers have been known for many years but your provincial politicians simply have ignored them. Clearing them up would not be a eliminate the DJT threat but it would help the economy.
Next, yes, we may well have to use our own tariffs and bans on exports of some goods but be aware that we in Alberta feel that we have been the first option of defense / offense for too many years. Decades, in fact. Therefore, use electricity exports and auto exports for purposes of tariffs and bans before you have expectations of we in Alberta.
These first two steps should be undertaken immediately no matter what. Next steps should be undertaken once we see what the tariffs actually are.
And, yet again as noted above, we have to take this whole thing very seriously but we also have to be realistic. I would expect that the actual implementation and resulting application of these tariffs will occur fairly quickly but also fairly unevenly. I would also expect that continuing to make representations to US officials at the national and state level will ultimately be what turns the tide for us but we have to recognize that that is a relatively long game.
I will offer one final suggestion but, again, this is in the nature of a "nuclear option." We can reasonably expect that any such tariffs by the US will dramatically affect our economy and cause our currency to crater. In turn, that will likely dramatically reduce Canadian travel to the US. Why not have the federal government do two things: first, put out a travel advisory that Canadians should avoid the US because it is a hostile state for Canadians; and, then, actually prohibit vacationing in the US. That should particularly hit Hawaii and Florida and various border cities that depend on Canadians for shopping. The point here is to try to bring economic pain to a variety of US businesses. Nuclear option and, as with all such, very dangerous.
I have attempted to offer some suggestions but, ultimately, this is going to be ugly and there is no real solution to be had.
OK, thank you for clarifying.
But you are operating on an assumption without any evidence that I know of. Specifically: "...'everything is on the table' means to most Central Canadians, 'First we hit them with oil and then we see what else to do.'"
I'm a lifelong Ontarian and I have no idea where you get that from. I certainly don't believe it. And if you look at what Doug Ford said, you will see the Premier of Ontario's FIRST SUGGESTION was that Ontario should cut off electricity to the US. He later opened that up to "energy" and, later, explicitly said, yes, it should include oil and gas. But he was absolutely clear from the beginning that Ontario should lead by example -- meaning cut off Ontario electricity, Ontario car parts, etc.
In fact, I know literally no one here who has said anything like what you are suggesting "most Central Canadians" believe. If you had asked for my personal view, I would have told you: I think we should cut all major exports across the board. We would all suffer badly. And yes, given the that exports aren't evenly distributed, that would mean some provinces/regions would suffer more -- therefore we should pool resources, help those disproportionately hurt, and ensure the pain is shared equally among us all.
We're one country. Let's act accordingly.
Oh, my dear Mr. Gardner! "We're one country. Let's act accordingly." What a laugh.
I asked you way back at the start where this call was for unity and cooperation when many countries came calling for Alberta O&G? When Alberta wanted pipelines to tidewater to develop foreign markets other than the USA? Yeah, the rest of Canada was dead-set against us. Some "one country." You are pushing an Ontario delusion.
You will have to forgive my cynicism when eastern Canadians who don't have a clue about the pain Albertans are feeling for this decade-long betrayal say, "we should pool resources, help those disproportionately hurt, and ensure the pain is shared equally among us." When an Albertan reads trollop like that, we are conditioned to hear, "we should siphon money out of oil-rich Alberta to support hard-hit industries in Ontario and Quebec." The bottom line is that federal politicians measure the "pain being felt" by the number of votes they can get by applying the salve of tax money. Since the vast majority of votes in this fine country are in the east, that's where the pain will be mitigated - with Alberta money, as usual.
You easterners who haven't noticed Alberta's pain ever before will just call us whiners and complainers when we ask to be made whole. That's not speculation, either. You don't have to surf twitter very long to see it in the comments coming from the east. Maybe the Toronto Star can do us all a favour and post people's feelings about Alberta on their front page, the way they published feelings for the "unvaccinated" in the time of covid.
Dan, you are full of high sentiment, but you haven't the first clue how politics actually works in Canada.
A genuine "Team Canada" approach would be for the eastern politicians to apologize to Alberta for screwing us over for so many decades, and offer to make us whole forthwith. E.g. by pre-emptively approving an Energy East Pipeline and a Northern Gateway Pipeline with an expedited timeline to completion. "We need your oil now, but we will pay you back in 5 years when you can freely access world markets!" Now that would be a deal I think a lot of Albertans could get behind - if it were binding. Getting Trudeau / Carney / Guilbault / Legault on board with that way of sharing the pain equally might pose more of a problem than you think.
I accept that you don't believe that, but, but, but ....
We have a history here in Alberta where we had to fight right to the UK Privy Council to be confirmed in our ownership of our resources - which all other provinces had but Alberta and Saskatchewan had Ottawa try and take them away from us. That is ancient history but it does color our views.
I will avoid history up until Trudeau 1 wherein he launched energy wars with us twice, changed the Income Tax Act to reduce our revenue and his Finance Minister (Marc Lalonde, if you recall) explained Ottawa's actions by stating quite clearly that Alberta had "too much power" and Ottawa had to change that.
Then, his son, the Face Painter, declared war anew with his various legislations aimed against Alberta (and please don't bring up TMX as that was a fiasco that blew up in his face) and now is quite interested in using our energy to benefit Central Canada.
Again, if these various characters said that they would first use autos and then electricity we might be more amenable but history has proven that our good intentions and actions are not met by similar from Central Canada.
So, to summarize, you and I have different perspectives. I accept that you are honorable in your intentions for Canada and I hope that you can accept that I and others like me are similarly honorable but that a different experience and history has colored our view.
Smith is not a good premier, period. She is prone to lying, and prone to following conspiracy theories. I am an Albertan, but believe I am a Canadian first. Trump is a real threat to our vastly better way of life, and we do not gain anything by sucking up to him.
We can agree to disagree on Smith.
As for me, after the way that the ROC has treated us over the years, I am an Albertan first and a Canadian only by accident of birth.
As for Trump, to me he is just another weird and selfish real estate guy from NY.
I think you’re being deliberately obtuse claiming that this is about Trump wanting these two things. Hitler just wanted to unite with Austria. Then he just wanted Czechoslovakia. Then he just wanted Poland. I’m not saying Trump is Hitler, but this is what happens when you appease.
Trump has no reputation for negotiating in good faith. Why would you assume that he is now?
This has nothing to do with "appeasement." This is nothing like the Third Reich or ancient Athens. You guys are completely misreading the situation. Canada should do what Trump is asking because it is better for Canada. A safer, more prosperous Canada will have knock-on benefits for America, which is what Trump wants; but if he doesn't get a safer and more prosperous Canada he's not going to invade. He's made it clear: he's simply not going to trade, which is every nation's sovereign right.
If that causes some or all provinces to beg for inclusion into the USA as the 51st state, that's on Canada's politicians. Given our history and geography, there is no reason Canada couldn't be the most prosperous and safe country in the world; we just don't have a functioning operating system. But the parochial small fries who benefit from the dysfunctional operating system don't want to make changes that will allow more competition, so we suffer.
Okay you’re seeing everything through an anti-elite lens and you’re making everything about that.
If we spend more on military and improve our border, we do it on our own terms, not on the US president’s. No one gets to threaten us and strong arm us. You can want a better military and border but we need to close ranks right now. Canadians decide for Canada.
"No one gets to threaten us." What planet do you live on? China threatens us all the time, and most of the time the Canadian government is only too happy to oblige. Any country can threaten us any time they want. We should be so lucky that the threats are only coming from Trump, and only conditioned on us refusing to do what is in our own best interests anyway. If you throw a tantrum and resist, your ODD and TDS are showing.
You still have no answer to the question of why we should accede to Trump’s demands when there is no reason to trust his good faith.
And any country that gives in to threats by a more powerful one isn’t a country at all. At that point pack it in. If a threat is all it takes, then we’re basically already at their mercy.
Buddy, I've answered that exact question at least 10 times already. You just aren't paying attention.
Canada should do what Trump, along with every other American President, has been asking America's allies to do for decades, because IT IS IN CANADA'S OWN INTEREST to secure our borders, not let inadequately vetted people from terrorist-infested regions into Canada, stop drug and sex trafficking, and significantly beef up our national defense.
Now, why don't you answer my question: Why all of this ODD and TDS, contrary to Canada's own interests, on your part? Refusing to do what is in your own interest just because someone you dislike asks you to do it is a sign of a mental problem.
Another point I have made numerous times on here, which you can't seem to get your pointy little head around, is that setting the terms of trade is the sovereign right of every country. Trump is merely exercising his right to trade with Canada, or not, on his terms. He is not issuing a "threat," he is giving fair warning.
(Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick explained the difference between threats and warnings in an article on "Coercion" way back in the 1960s. Dan isn't interested in these philosophical niceties, either, preferring to think that this trade dispute is somehow analogous to Athens threatening Melos with military annihilation if they don't pay tribute. Maybe that is why he attracts small minds like yours to his substack.)
"If we spend more on military..." we could have a once-respected military again. Instead our leaders, with the general support of a complacent citizenry, have practically neglected it for decades, allowing our military to decline. Trump is more brash in addressing issues, but he's far from the first to complain about this one.
I immigrated in 1970, when the Vietnam War and the US draft, both of which I opposed, were still active. Although I had completed alternative service and wasn't dodging the draft, my wife and I felt that becoming Canadians would ensure that the children we expected to have wouldn't have to deal with it. The immigration officer we met with made it clear that, even back then, Canada was in effect protected by the US. Do you think that officer was looking through an anti-elite "lens"?
As someone who has banged on about the need for greatly boosted military spending for years and years, I think I have standing to say: Yes. Let's do it. Immediately.
But, no, do not do it because it's what Donald Trump asks, because he would take that as nothing but an admission of weakness. And he would be right. Also, it would lack domestic support and therefore not be sustainable.
Split the issues: Boost the military budget, yes; and, yes, deal with Trump as a proud, sovereign nation that won't be pushed around.
Refusing to do what is in your own best interests just because someone you dislike asks you to do it is the sign of a mental problem, Dan. Children usually grow out of it when they get their first job.
This is a non-sequitur. Whether or not to spend money on the military is a completely different discussion than whether we fold like a cheap suit when Trump makes threats. We improve the military when and if we choose to, not in response to threats. If threats get him what he wants you better believe there will be more. So it’s just a question of whether we say no now or later.
The non-sequitur is that taking action (not just making promises) that is broadly understood to be beneficial, but doing it only after Trump applies pressure, means Canada is to "fold like a cheap suit".
I was going to make my own reply but then I read your marvelous response to Dan Gardner and - if I do comment - it will be far different as you have absolutely hit the nail on the head.
I was just skimming some of the comments, particularly those from the Trump apologist(s), and realized that perhaps this is the point of the exercise - sorting the real patriots from those who live in Canada for other reasons. The exercise is obviously divisive. In previous times we could more or less all muddle along together in our separate political spheres and occasionally bump into one another for commerce or around our kids' soccer games. Maybe that muddling is no longer an option.
If it were possible to continue muddling it would likely be the most Canadian thing possible for us to do so. Still, I'm curious if the current circumstances necessarily sharpen the contrast - not between left and right, or statists versus libertarians - but between those whose primary loyalty is with Canada and those who are either antipathetic or indifferent to the Canadian project.
Ken, you may be reading subtext into my post that I didn't intend. I'm from Alberta and I'd be the first to observe the awkward hypocrisy of a federal government suggesting export duties or an export ban on fossil fuels might give Canada important leverage over the Americans. That said, the 'eastern bastards, Laurentian elite' mercilessly exploiting Alberta also seems like an awkward fit with the truth.
To me, the truth is more nuanced. Sometimes Alberta resources have been exploited by the centre. Other times we have received what from almost any perspective would would look like an outstanding deal. After all, it's a rare thing for average incomes in the 'colony' to significantly exceed those of the 'metropole'.
As you likely guessed I identify as a Canadian patriot. I see no contradiciton between acknowledging Alberta has received a relatively bad deal from Ottawa over the last 9 years and believing Alberta should nevertheless align with the other provinces to administer to our American friends the best punch in the nose that we can. In a marriage sometimes we're givers, sometimes we're takers. My experience is that these relationships are rarely 'evensy-stevensy', but ebb and flow over time. I think membership in a country works the same way, and has the same rewards when we remain faithful and stop trying to keep score all the time.
Martin, I respectfully offer that we in Alberta who have lived through the "be a REAL Canadian" schtick for so many years that we see it for what it is: use, abuse and misuse Alberta and her resources so that Central Canada need not use it's capital. I respectfully submit that if we in Alberta really thought that you actually would put skin in the game then we would think differently.
Please allow me a thought exercise. Instead of considering using Alberta's oil as an initial bargaining chip why not have as a first bargaining chip Quebec and Ontario's hydro exports? What about Ontario's auto exports? Yes, I know that "everything is on the table" but why has the "popular" thought been on the use of our oil resources?
AFTER you put export tariffs on electricity and autos and AFTER you ban the export of electricity and autos, then come talk to us about the use of oil. I expect that at that point you will find us much more amenable because at that point you would have proven - for the first time - that Central Canada is willing to walk the walk instead of only talking the talk.
I’ve got good news for you, Ken: cutting off hydro from Intario was the FIRST thing the Premier of Ontario called for.
May I suggest you are reading the news with prejudice.
That's true, Dan, but it is a little like saying, "First I'll toss $10 into the pot; then when that has no effect, you toss $1million into the pot and we'll call it an even sacrifice."
Ken, you may be reading subtext into my post that I didn't intend. I'm from Alberta and I'd be the first to observe the awkward hypocrisy of a federal government suggesting export duties or an export ban on fossil fuels might give Canada important leverage over the Americans. That said, the 'eastern bastards, Laurentian elite' of Alberta being mercilessly exploited also seems like an awkward fit with the truth.
To me, the truth is more nuanced. Sometimes Alberta resources have been exploited by the centre. Other times we have received what from almost any perspective would would look like an outstanding deal. After all, it's a rare thing for average incomes in the 'colony' to significantly exceed those of the 'metropole'.
As you likely guessed I identify as Canadian patriot. I see no contradiciton between acknowledging Alberta has received a relatively bad deal from Ottawa over the last 9 years and believing Alberta should nevertheless align with the other provinces to administer to our American friends the best punch in the nose that we can. In a marriage sometimes we're givers, sometimes we're takers. My experience is that these relationships are rarely 'evensy-stevensy', but ebb and flow over time. I think membership in a country works the same way, and has the same rewards when we remain faithful and stop trying to keep score all the time.
I'm all for punching the bully in the nose but please use the electricity punch or the auto punch before using the resources punch.
Ken, do you realize what you are arguing? You told me you thought all us central Canadians wanted to embargo oil first because the pain would fall on the west, and only later would we consider embargoing things that hurt us. I showed you that's not true. (The Premier of Ontario's first suggestion was to cut Ontario hydro.)
Now here you making the very argument the same argument, only reversed -- in other words, you are making the argument you accused central Canadian of making but reversed to favour the west.
How about this: Let's all do this together. We're one country. Let's act like it. Agreed?
Dan, you are assuming that the playing field is level to begin with. It isn't. It hasn't been for decades. Estimates vary, but between $13billion and $20billion in wealth created in Alberta is transferred and spent every year in other parts of Canada - mostly in Quebec to win votes. "Team Canada" has been abusing Alberta for decades, not only by taking our wealth without the slightest prospect of reciprocation, but by hampering our attempts to generate even more wealth. Alberta has made all of the sacrifices we should be expected to make for the benefit of the east decades before this trade dispute was a twinkle in Trump's eye. Asking Alberta to make by far the biggest FURTHER sacrifice (because central Canada squandered our international goodwill that could have been purchased with Alberta wealth) is not my idea of everyone pulling together equally.
My advice: take the equalization payments Alberta is already giving eastern, and fight your cherished trade war with those funds.
I must respectfully note that I do not see the inconsistency. That doesn't mean that it isn't there but, rather, that I don't see it (I do wear glasses, so ...). Of course, that may mean that my commentary should be ignored in it's entirety, but ...
I would note that Winston Churchill spoke on consistency in many ways but, among other things, he made two points:
"It is better to be both right and consistent. But if you have to choose - you must be right."
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
Please don't think that I compare myself to Churchill or that he justifies any inconsistency I might have exhibited. Rather, I simply take refuge in quotes that allow me to be inconsistent and not examine that inconsistency (if it exists).
Thank you, Sir.
Trump feasts on weakness.Alberta’s Premier has displayed weakness.
In such a crisis as Canada is currently facing she should recall the wisdom of the phrase “ one for all and all for one”.
Remember when the US banned Alberta beef? Canadians consumed it.
The premier of Alberta was elected to defend Alberta’s interests. Likewise the premiers of the other provinces have been elected to defend their provinces’ respective interests. Theoretically, there exists a Canadian federal government to do likewise for the Canadian federation as a whole.
In practice, the federal government exists to distribute equalization payments between provinces. They are not good at defending the country in nationalistic terms.
Sorry Dan this is a really bad take at a time Trudeau and Guilbeault’s chickens are coming home to roost. Alberta is done with the Laurentian bull and if there isn’t an election soon then the Clarity Act might come into play.
If you think the issue we need to focus on is any Canadian politician, or the "Laurentian elite," or any other petty crap, then I'm afraid you are demonstrating why the very existence of this country is in grave danger.
The "Laurentian elite" is a reality we live with. It might be fairly called crap, but the pile is too big to be called petty. Canada is still one country despite it, not because of it. Having a PM who actually says there's no core identity is clear evidence of the arrogance of that elite.
Your way of thinking is why the country is in danger, Dan. You display utter disdain for the interests of Albertans.
1) I never discussed Alberta or any province/region in my posts or with you. 2) I want and expect retaliatory sanctions on the United States would include car parts and electricity, and lots more, which will hammer my province badly. 3) My hope is that Canadians together share in the pain and pool resources to help those most affected. 4) Now you are simply making up shit to attack me with because that's what you do. Always. With clocklike predictability.
You are championing a trade war that will necessarily have a hugely disproportionate impact on Alberta. It will lead to a national unity crisis, as Danielle Smith notes. Your criticism of Smith not being a team player, and your failure to address the problem of national unity, tells the reader all they need to know about where your concerns truly lie, Dan. I just wish you would stop being disingenuous about it.
Grant: I apologize. I broke my rule and tried to engage you in good faith. I know from past experience with you that if I were to write, say, "Hitler was bad" you would find some way to accuse me of harbouring an irrational hatred of koala bears or hiding kidnapped babies in my basement. My mistake. Won't happen again.
<eye roll>
Grant, I'm a western conservative from Red Deer, and I think what Dan wrote rings true. I dislike Trudeau as much as most, and am delighted the country has passed peak-woke by many years. However, my loyalties are also clear. I place the needs of my country before the much narrower, short-term interests of my province. I gather you disagree, and imagine we might hitch our wagon to whatever national jurisdiction offers us the best deal?
My preference would be for an independent, sovereign Alberta. And I'd take Saskatchewan and north-central B.C., too. But being the 51st state isn't a terrible Plan B. Much better than the status quo.
Your excellent points plus: Do Albertans really think that appeasement works with people like Trump? Will it end when you give him what he wants today? No damn chance.
I'm a grounded western libertarian; you are an eastern progressive with TDS. Of course I'm going to disagree with you about almost everything in the political realm, "with clockwork predictability." You score no brownie points for making *that* observation, Dan.
You seem to be unaccustomed to and shocked by political disagreement. You need to get out more, maybe.
It’s not Trump derangement syndrome to notice that Trump has never once negotiated in good faith. All of your arguments assume some special trustworthy, reasonable version of Trump suddenly manifesting. You can’t negotiate with terrorists. He is figuratively holding our economy hostage and demanding a million in unmarked bills. Why do you think giving him a million leads to a safely returned economy? When has he ever been honest or trustworthy ever in his life?
Your claims are overwrought. Take a break and relax, maybe you will get over it.
If we lose our country, we can't get it back. This game has the highest possible stakes.
Apropos of nothing but better times, that opening line "These Are The Times That Try Men's Souls," leads the Kingston Trio's splendid tune "MTA" out of 1962(?) LP - not even cassette - but right now is currently available with the visuals on U-Tube for free and it's still a great song. Always wondered where they got that.line though. 1962 the atmospheric lead levels were 300 times - that's not percent - what the were in the middle ages from car and diesel exhaust - which might explain a few things. Higher than background during the Roman Empire when they used lead foe everything including water pipes.
Think Dan has a point overall.
Whether or not the withered tangerine goes through with any of this, Canada has to take this very seriously and really reassess its relationship with the yanks. Whatever the intentions behind the bombast and bloviation, remember that it’s issuing from the rancid mouth of a man who is two days from becoming the actual president of the United States. That’s a very big deal. That the Americans voted him in and allow him and his enablers to waltz into power is a wake-up call for Canada. There are much smaller and less well endowed countries who suffer much less from the delusion that the US is their friendly uncle and treat it instead as a constant threat. Like having a pet tiger…you don’t let it play with the kids unsupervised…
Canada and Canadians have got to start treating the US like Eastern European countries treat Russia, the tiger is in the house and he’s hungry.
Canada may have to do what Russia did, and sell our natural resources elsewhere.
The question right wing party’s around the world need to ask themselves, and that voters need to ask of right wing party’s is a simple one. Will they prioritise the needs of their nation over the whims of an American Nationalist and his online supporters
As an American, I'll be honest: I kind of like the idea of Canada joining the US even if I dislike the tactics used. I think both sides would mostly gain if we were to join together. Yes, some serious discussion will occur about what happens to Canadian healthcare and such, but the increase in wealth and mobility to both countries would be incredibly positive. If we could come to a compromise of some sort of establishing an Amerizone where we had free immigration and tariff-free trade but political autonomy for both countries, that would be fantastic. Again, dislike the tactics, but like the potential ideal outcome (which, yes, is unlikely).
Fair enough. It's not an unreasonable discussion. And flattering! But when the subject is raised attached to an "or else," the natural response -- of any human being, whatever their nationality -- is to curl one's fingers into a fist.
Agreed. Terrible way to start a negotiation.
Speak for yourself. These are issues best thought of with parts of the brain other than the amygdala.
"Best thought of" and "natural human response" are two entirely different things.
What on earth could Canada gain? A healthcare system more betoken than theirs, u limited guns, denial of climate change; a broken education system and a theocracy. I’m sure they will come running.
You are hopelessly Canadian in your selection of delusions, Timothy.
Nope. Just clear eyed about our failings in the U.S. I did get a laugh out of the fact you are a libertarian.
I think free trade and a mostly open border accomplishes most of this no?
Yes, that would absolutely also accomplish it, and I would be for it. But some folks are going to be squeamish about that for nationalist/Trumpy reasons. Second best thing would be an "Amerizone". Might be more acceptable if it preserves each country's autonomy for the most part and maybe if we could somehow frame it as nationalist. Third best thing would be one country absorbing/joining the other. That last one would be messy and very politically uncomfortable for the subsumed entity, but would accomplish that end goal. But, yes, shout out to Caplanian free trade and open immigration as the best solution.
There was an article in the Globe and Mail today about why this would be unworkable—I found it persuasive. Tell me what you think: https://apple.news/AgipOT4kTRVGrqEPFKDlnkQ
Unfortunately, It's pay walled, and I can't get to it. All I can say is I would be surprised if an economic union would be unworkable since you see a (albeit highly imperfect) form of this in the EU. The US is also an example of a union of relatively independent and diverse governments and economies. Maybe it's difficult or has potential issues, but unworkable seems like a strong word. That said, I was open to reading and changing my mind on that. Oh well.
The gist of it was that what makes the EU possible is that countries give up a bit of their sovereignty to the EU “supranational” government. This works when it is a bunch of countries, but with Canada and the US you would be asking the US to put itself equally under the “North American Council” or whatever it might be named.
The argument is that either the US would put itself on an equal footing with Canada as a member nation or Canada would be the junior partner, putting itself under US rule. Since the former seems very unlikely, the only way to do it would be for Canada to subject itself to some degree of rule by the US.
Huh, weird, not the argument I expected. I would think that's definitely more of a political will issue rather than an implementation problem, but I could see how that could cause an issue if no one wants an intermediary entity to submit to and could cause the deal to collapse. Not sure how that would play out in reality.
Hold a Canada-wide referendum. The "Join America" option will lose.
I think you're right, Dan. He can't be placated, because there's something wrong with him. His mind never feels safe.
Trump is only happy when he's in the spotlight and everything is about him.
A recent article circulating on twitter suggests that interprovincial trade barriers cost Canadians the equivalent of a 21% tariff on our own goods and services. Canadian politicians aren't even capable of sorting out our own internal trade problems, but they want to sabre-rattle on trade against Trump. They could almost neutralize the effect of Trump's 25% tariffs just by making Canada a true free trade zone, but they won't do it because they each want to control their own little economies so they can bestow favours on friends and feel good about it. The Laurentian Elites would rather be big fish in a small pond than small fries in a big pond. And that's what makes Canada such a prime target for a hostile takeover. Except that more and more shareholders in Canada Corp. are willing to take the buy-out at this point.
Are these really the parochial imbeciles you really want handling trade relations with Trump?
I was recently reading a book about the nazi occupation of Norway and for reason I couldn’t help but think of Trump’s delusions about turning Canada into the 51st state and his obsession which Greenland . But on a different note I was reading an article about Canadian’s “quantum university”. Very strange times we live in. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/medical-critical-thinking-pseudoscience/quantum-university-misuses-physics-train-fake-doctors?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
"In a country where french immersion is the ‘wink wink’ of uppity schoolyard moms and a Nordiques sweater gets you a big high five in every province, how long would it take a Canadian NHL Commissioner to give the Quebec Nordiques back to Quebec City? It’s a no brainer. QC already has a state of the art arena, the fan base and a world class regional rivalry with the Habs." https://trkingston.substack.com/p/a-canadian-nhl-commissioner-would
Today, Ford said he is prepared to fight a tariff war with Trump by spending tens of billions of dollars, "with the help of Ottawa." Where does Ford think Ottawa gets its tariff-fighting money from, if not from Ontarians? Oh, right, he expects Ottawa to support Ontario's tariff war using Alberta's money. Seems the cat is out of the bag now...
Europe shot itself in the foot with Russian gas; US is about to do the same with Canadian crude. I'm sympathetic to Danielle Smith for wanting a 'carve out' for Alberta, but if Americans insist on playing with guns...
If Trump weren't a buffoon, he would have presented his demands privately and our obsequious political class would have done their best to meet them. That's what allies are for.
It's not too late to take matters behind closed doors, so why should Canadians take him seriously?
I don't know if Canadians should feel disrespected. I don't consider Trump to be a serious politician or leader. He is as subservient to Zionism and the US Deep State as Harris would've been, and will do as he's told. At some point, he will be told to stop creating mountains out of molehills. There are actual geopolitical challenges for the US to address, and Canada is not one of them.
I would like our politicians to grow a backbone and stand up for the country, but that's too much to ask. There will be more pushback from Canadians because of Trump's antics, and that is as it should be. Where is the pushback from Americans who value our relationship?