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

[McG]

Trudeau should be held accountable for that lack of definitive protective actions, no?

There are a lot of people who should be held accountable. It has nothing to do with Trump’s tariffs. Perhaps we can see common ground here?

 

[brihard]

you reference the Canada Elections Act but are not these provisions already in the Constitution?

Provision​

4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members.

(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

I was under the impression that (2) was a little more permissive on what reasons for an extension and more limited by one year on the extension. A pre Charter thing perhaps?

I cannot speak to pre-charter, but it wouldn’t be applicable anyway. If we have a war, invasion, or insurrection we can revisit it.

The Government had enacted the Emergencies Act for vehicles on Wellington Street, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility that the Government makes the case that POTUS 47 represents an existential threat to Canada and that the Government see fit to enact the EA.

I’m not sure why people don’t think PM Carney would do this.

And which category of emergency enumerated in the Emergencies Act do you suggest would be applicable?

Carney’s not exactly unfamiliar with being in a leadership role through major economic downturns. Suggesting he would somehow usurp our statutorily prescribed election date and stretch government by a year over tariffs is just a weird fantasy. There are people I’d expect that from, but you’re not one of them.

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

 

[Good2Golf]

Anyone can have their opinions, but I don’t see anything defensible in the opinion that Trump’s tarifs are about Trudeau. If someone has something more tangible than imagination that ties Trump’s tariffs to Trudeau as the cause, then persuade me.

People need a narrative that fits their world view that allows them to keep cheering for Trump.

Absolutely.

There are a lot of people who should be held accountable. It has nothing to do with Trump’s tariffs. Perhaps we can see common ground here?

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

Noting that Canada is reaping much of what it sowed through inaction, now at the hands of Trump and his administration, is not the same as espousing that Trump is inappropriately personalizing action against Trudeau.

If you think I’m blindly cheering on Trump, perhaps it best you put me on ignore…

Or…pick apart my thought-piece linkage/path?

Edit to add:

Chinese interference/illegal activities in Canada > investigations > CSIS > David Vigneault > Striker Technologies > H.R. McMaster > past National Security Advisor to Trump > Trump

Refute it. Critique it. Suggest a more insightful linkage path.

Do something other than an ad hominem attack on me as a tin-foil hatter…or don’t…

 

[Remius]

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

Sorry. That wasn’t directed at you specifically. It was in relation to what McG was pointing out.

 

[Good2Golf]

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

I agree fully with you; I was suggesting that this could be a path that PM Carney could take.

The actual threat remains - China and its continued efforts to infiltrate and degrade Canadian institutions. I would like to believe that any responsible Canadian government would take definitive action, which to date, it hasn’t.

Dare I too dream and see Bill C-70 be re-activated and approved when Parliament resumes?

 

[Remius]

I agree fully with you; I was suggesting that this could be a path that PM Carney could take.

The actual threat remains - China and its continued efforts to infiltrate and degrade Canadian institutions. I would like to believe that any responsible Canadian government would take definitive action, which to date, it hasn’t.

Dare I too dream and see Bill C-70 be re-activated and approved when Parliament resumes?

But in relation to tariffs. How many countries might now turn to China even more as a result of US isolationism.

 

[McG]

You two have mistakenly interpreted my points as cheering for Trump.

I don’t think you are cheering for Trump. But you seem to really need this to be Trudeau’s fault. There is nothing to substantiate that position. There is nothing of substance to your list. It is six degrees from Kevin Bacon but politics.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I cannot speak to pre-charter, but it wouldn’t be applicable anyway. If we have a war, invasion, or insurrection we can revisit it.



And which category of emergency enumerated in the Emergencies Act do you suggest would be applicable?

Carney’s not exactly unfamiliar with being in a leadership role through major economic downturns. Suggesting he would somehow usurp our statutorily prescribed election date and stretch government by a year over tariffs is just a weird fantasy. There are people I’d expect that from, but you’re not one of them.

Tarriffs are not an existential threat to Canada and more than the 2008 financial crisis or COVID pandemic were. They’re just a really shitty set of circumstances that pose profound policy challenges.

I agree with Brihard, here, that the Parliament will not be extended over this tariff strife.

Many reasons: First, The Emergencies Act and the authority in the constitution for extending Parliament are not related provisions of the law. There are national emergencies that do not fall into the categories of war, invasion (how is that different than war?) or insurrection, which are the only cases permitting the extension of a siting Parliament's term.

Second: One third + 1 of the members of Parliament need vote to refuse the extension for it to not, repeat, not happen. With a HoC of 338 and 120 conservatives right now, there is no way in hell an extension can be adopted by the Commons.

 

[Good2Golf]

But in relation to tariffs. How many countries might now turn to China even more as a result of US isolationism.

I don’t know.

Canada needs to focus on Canada, which includes addressing foreign adversarial action against its institutions.

 

[Remius]

I don’t know.

Canada needs to focus on Canada, which includes addressing foreign adversarial action against its institutions.

Agreed. But remember when Harper was desperate to get oil to China? I can easily see a repeat of that sort of thing if in an extended trade war,

 

[Remius]

I agree with Brihard, here, that the Parliament will not be extended over this tariff strife.

Many reasons: First, The Emergencies Act and the authority in the constitution for extending Parliament are not related provisions of the law. There are national emergencies that do not fall into the categories of war, invasion (how is that different than war?) or insurrection, which are the only cases permitting the extension of a siting Parliament's term.

Second: One third + 1 of the members of Parliament need vote to refuse the extension for it to not, repeat, not happen. With a HoC of 338 and 120 conservatives right now, there is no way in hell an extension can be adopted by the Commons.

Same. It’s fear mongering and misinformation being spread.

 

[brihard]

I agree fully with you; I was suggesting that this could be a path that PM Carney could take.

The actual threat remains - China and its continued efforts to infiltrate and degrade Canadian institutions. I would like to believe that any responsible Canadian government would take definitive action, which to date, it hasn’t.

Dare I too dream and see Bill C-70 be re-activated and approved when Parliament resumes?

C-70 received royal assent in its entirety in June. You’re thinking of the foreign agent registry regulations which are still being drafted. Prorogue doesn’t impact that. The new criminal offences added to FISOIA as part of C-70 came into force in August.

 

[Good2Golf]

C-70 received royal assent in its entirety in June. You’re thinking of the foreign agent registry regulations which are still being drafted. Prorogue doesn’t impact that. The new criminal offences added to FISOIA as part of C-70 came into force in August.

Brihard, you’re right, mea culpa. That’s was a by memory pull, and mixed my foreign interference activities. I meant Bill S-237 FIRAA - Foreign Interference Registry and Accountability Act, vice Bill C-70 FITAA - Foreign Interference Transparency and Accountability Act (with its problematically vague definition of ‘foreign principal’).

S-237 (44-1) - LEGISinfo - Parliament of Canada

S-237 (44-1) - LEGISinfo - Parliament of Canada

www.parl.ca

…or whatever the Government intend to replace S-237 with if not intent on pursuing it.

 

[RangerRay]

His dislike of Trudeau is a personal thing. That’s not at play here, it’s his leadership, or lack thereof, as Canada’s leader.

Canada’s lack of definitive action to protect against Chinese (and a lesser degree India and Russia) adversarial attack on its institutions.

Trudeau should be held accountable for that lack of definitive protective actions, no?

I don’t know. I hear a lot of Trump-whisperers out there try to tell us what he’s really thinking, but I want to see actual evidence, not wish-casting.

 

[Good2Golf]

I don’t know. I hear a lot of Trump-whisperers out there try to tell us what he’s really thinking, but I want to see actual evidence, not wish-casting.

I guess we’ll see some of that tomorrow.

 

[Lumber]

And here we go!

25% across the board with the exception of 10% on energy.

For Mexico, it's a straight 25% across the board.

Starts Tuesday.

 

[OldSolduer]

And here we go!

25% across the board with the exception of 10% on energy.

For Mexico, it's a straight 25% across the board.

Starts Tuesday.

Everybody take a deep breath and let’s see where this takes us.

Any response from the GoC?

 

[Remius]

Everybody take a deep breath and let’s see where this takes us.

Any response from the GoC?

Announcement set for 18:00 EST today.

 

[Brad Sallows]

This isn't all Trudeau's fault. He just is a leader in the mob that sets the tone.

Better trade relationships with China will be awesome; China will become our friend and become more liberal with respect to human rights and international relations. We don't need to worry about developing infrastructure to export more of our extracted resources through Canadian ports to customers across our adjacent oceans. We can subsidize our way to a low-carbon energy base, even a net-zero one. We can overspend as long as one important number - debt as % of GDP - is stable or falling below some magic number threshold no-one can quite agree on. We care about Canadians, which is why we're going to let them bear the brunt of recession-militating counter-measures which seem to be the only kinds of steps we'll take to mitigate a tariff-induced recession.

That mob was so sure of themselves. From the lack of movement on internal trade liberalization and the insistence of sticking to the same solutions - don't liberalize restraints on business and trade to fight a recession, just provide more financial supports regardless how marginal the enterprises are - they still are sure of themselves. PS: talk about everything as "war" to incite bad tempers everywhere, which is always sure to bring people to reasonable solutions.

 

[RangerRay]

I guess we’ll see some of that tomorrow.

Don’t get me wrong. Our government needs to be held accountable for it wilful blindness and inaction on Beijing’s influence operations here. I just don’t see the linkages being made that you and others are making between these tariffs and our national security shortfalls. All anyone is talking about the border is for us to do the Americans’ job to keep drugs and undesirables out of their country, which is back asswards IMHO.