cwericb Posted January 17 Posted January 17 1 hour ago, RichardGibbons said: Yep, I think you're largely right. Canada has plenty of uranium, and it feels like it's about time for Canada to build a nuclear arsenal. Just to protect our national interest of course, since Trump's made it clear that he doesn't really see any other countries as allies or worth defending.. Even better, it would increase Canada's military budget, just as Trump wants, making NATO far stronger. Agreed. It is far past time that our government in Ottawa grew up and realized that we have a responsibility to maintain a military strong enough to protect our sovereignty. The simplest way to accomplish that is through nuclear weapons, a deterrent to anyone considering invading this country, no matter if that invasion came from the North, West, East or - even the South.
gary17 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 I'm not familiar with Canadian laws but can the Liberal government actually stop oil / electricity etc from being sent to the USA? Or all they can do is implement some sort of export tax , thus indirectly forcing those to be dialed back? It's really too bad they shot themselves in the foot - we can't send oil and other resources to Asia or Europe.
SharperDingaan Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 (edited) Federal law only prevails at the national border (ie: an export out of Canada); whereas everywhere within a province, or between provinces, it is a provincial jurisdiction. A complication; is that oil/gas produced in Alberta, but sold at BC tide-water, is a matter between BC/Ottawa (where it leaves Canada) and not Alberta/Ottawa (where it is produced in Canada). Ottawa can impose a tax; but not actually stop the flow, unless the province with the egress also agrees to it. The Albertan premier deserves huge kudos for NOT caving to the Team Canada pressure. The straight-forward solution is a (tariff offsetting) federal export tax on US bound oil/gas, plus the proceeds from a modified carbon tax, funding new pipe going east, west, and north under a guarantee from the rest of Canada. Confederation type guarantee; no bull-shit, no veto's, no hostage taking via environmental assessments, etc, etc. The country building of national pipe, being no different to the country building of a CP/CN rail, the Trans-Canada Highway, or an Air Canada, etc. Inter-provincial trade barriers are by far, the worst trade impediments Canada has; hence it's a tough nut to crack, you need hard ass premiers, and Canada first. No holds barred blunt conversation taking place behind the barn. As in most family discussions, they're not that far apart, but it's very much play nice, or cave to the enemy (Trump). Your choice. SD Edited January 18 by SharperDingaan
gary17 Posted January 17 Posted January 17 4 hours ago, SharperDingaan said: Federal law only prevails at the national border (ie: an export out of Canada); whereas everywhere within a province. or between provinces, it is a provincial jurisdiction. A complication; is that oil/gas produced in Alberta, but sold at BC tide-water, is a matter between BC/Ottawa (where it leaves Canada) and not Alberta/Ottawa (where it is produced in Canada). Ottawa can impose a tax; but not actually stop the flow, unless the province with the egress also agrees to it. The Albertan premier deserves huge kudos for NOT caving to the Team Canada pressure. The straight-forward solution is a (tariff offsetting) federal export tax on US bound oil/gas, plus the proceeds from a modified carbon tax, funding new pipe going east, west, and north under a guarantee from the rest of Canada. Confederation type guarantee; no bull-shit, no veto's, no hostage taking via environmental assessments, etc, etc. The country building of national pipe, being no different to the country building of a CP/CN rail, the Trans-Canada Highway, or an Air Canada, etc. Inter-provincial trade barriers are by far, the worst trade impediments Canada has; hence it's a tough nut to crack, you need hard ass premiers, and Canada first, no holds barred blunt conversation taking place behind the barn. As in most family discussions, they're not that far apart, but it's very much play nice, or cave to the enemy (Trump). Your choice. SD Thanks SD - always insightful. I was recently reminded too about the inter-provincial barriers being very significant and perhaps removing those could help Canada offset the impacts it might feel from the barrier that US is about to impose.
SharperDingaan Posted January 17 Author Posted January 17 (edited) Some added detail. It's hardly surprising that Alberta is so pissed; and frankly, good on them ... Per another board: https://www.investorvillage.com/groups.asp?mb=19168&mn=601428&pt=msg&mid=25349177 Comments on Danielle Smith and "Team Canada"- An Alberta Viewpoint. I may no longer be in politics, but some issues are too important to stay silent on. Danielle Smith is taking a strong stand against Ottawa’s reckless proposal to ban Alberta’s energy exports. I strongly support her efforts, and I hope you will too. For years, Alberta has been let down by Ottawa and by provinces that put up roadblocks to getting our resources to market. Now, federal politicians are floating the idea of banning Alberta’s energy exports entirely. Danielle has been clear: Alberta will not stand for policies that threaten our economy and livelihoods. Some suggest we need a “Team Canada” approach. That idea might carry more weight if there had ever been a Team Canada working to support Alberta in the past. Unfortunately, history tells a very different story: Where was “Team Canada” when Northern Gateway was vetoed in 2016, losing us 525,000 barrels per day in export capacity? Instead of addressing the court’s requirements for Indigenous consultation, the federal government killed the project outright and banned tankers on the northwest coast. Where was “Team Canada” when Energy East was cancelled in 2017? Quebec and Ontario imposed unnecessary, duplicative reviews, creating endless regulatory uncertainty. Ottawa offered no support, and the project was lost, along with the chance to ship 1 million barrels per day to the East Coast. Where was “Team Canada” when provinces like British Columbia blocked pipelines? B.C. imposed unconstitutional conditions on Trans Mountain, which the courts struck down in 2019. Before that, in 2018, they tried to restrict diluted bitumen shipments, threatening Alberta’s economy and delaying progress. And where is “Team Canada” now? Ottawa has imposed Bill C-69, the “No More Pipelines” Act, and an unconstitutional production cap. They’re introducing electricity regulations that harm Alberta’s competitiveness and passing laws like Bill C-59 that silence the voices supporting Alberta’s energy. So forgive Albertans if we’re skeptical of a federal “Team Canada” approach that seems designed to landlock our resources and harm our economy. Maybe if there had been real support in the past, we wouldn’t be in this position now. Danielle Smith is fighting to protect Alberta’s oil and gas industry from Ottawa’s latest reckless idea—an export ban on Alberta energy. She’s fighting for your jobs, your community, and Alberta’s future. This is about defending Alberta’s place in Canada and ensuring we have the freedom to develop our resources, create jobs, and grow our economy. Sincerely, Hon. Sonya Savage, KC Former Minister of Energy SD Edited January 17 by SharperDingaan
Spekulatius Posted January 18 Posted January 18 @SharperDingaan Sound like Team Canada need to get build first, before you can deal with Trump. The above is a good summary of the infighting between the provinces as it relates to energy policy. A decade as lost going back and forth but nothing promotes unity more so than a common adversary.
Spekulatius Posted January 22 Posted January 22 (edited) Trump really has Canada in the crosshairs despite it being pretty inconsequential in term of drug traffic as well as illegal immigration’s. Mexico clearly is the big kahuna with both those issues.. My guess is that Trump wants to impact the election. Mexico had theirs so not much he can do there but with Canada, I think he can. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Will be interesting to see for sure. Edited January 22 by Spekulatius
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Spekulatius said: Trump really has Canada in the crosshairs despite it being pretty inconsequential in term of drug traffic as well as illegal immigration’s. Mexico clearly is the big kahuna with both those issues.. My guess is that Trump wants to impact the election. Mexico had theirs so not much he can do there but with Canada, I think he can. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Will be interesting to see for sure. You may be giving credit for 3rd level thinking that is much lower order. There are no drugs or immigrants coming from Canada on any meaningful scale (if you're an immigrant who made it Canada why move?) so it looks more like a "pick-on-the-smaller-kid-to look-tough" move. Like Greenland or Panama. What would he want out of an election in Canada? What exactly is a "win" here? Threats tend to rally the troops in the other direction. Putting a 25% tariff on half of the lumber used in the US is going to have a pretty negative impact on homebuilding (and running out the workers who do most of the actual building won't help either). Confused as to what the end game is here that is good for either side.
RichardGibbons Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 hours ago, Spekulatius said: Trump really has Canada in the crosshairs despite it being pretty inconsequential in term of drug traffic as well as illegal immigration’s. Mexico clearly is the big kahuna with both those issues.. My guess is that Trump wants to impact the election. Mexico had theirs so not much he can do there but with Canada, I think he can. That’s the only explanation that makes sense to me. Will be interesting to see for sure. My theory is that the Trump simply wants tariffs as a way to raise money for the government without directly taxing Americans. However, presidential Executive orders are highly restricted--they can't be used for just any arbitrary action. But they can be used when the country's security is at risk. So, I think the complaints about fentanyl and illegal immigration are simply a legal way to justify Executive orders to implement tariffs. The actual state of border security is irrelevant, because they only thing needed is the legal "security is at risk" justification. The "influence the election" theory is an interesting one, because it's unclear to me whether that would mean Trump wants the Liberals to win the next Canadian election, or that he's not smart enough to realize that these actions are likely to improve the Liberals' chances in the next election.
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Trump has already won substantially by getting rid of Trudeau. Just like the US won by getting rid of Biden. Now it's up to Canada to decide their next leadership move and go from there. Galvinizing the troops to boot Trudeau was a huge win for the US. Justin thought he could out-troll Trump and lost big time.
RichardGibbons Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 minute ago, cubsfan said: Trump has already won substantially by getting rid of Trudeau. Just like the US won by getting rid of Biden. Now it's up to Canada to decide their next leadership move and go from there. Galvinizing the troops to boot Trudeau was a huge win for the US. Justin thought he could out-troll Trump and lost big time. Freeland brought down Trudeau. Trump had nothing to do with it.
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Why did Trudeau coming running down to Mar-a-Lago to help save his ass?
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 minute ago, cubsfan said: Trump has already won substantially by getting rid of Trudeau. Just like the US won by getting rid of Biden. Now it's up to Canada to decide their next leadership move and go from there. Galvinizing the troops to boot Trudeau was a huge win for the US. Justin thought he could out-troll Trump and lost big time. Trump didn't get rid of Trudeau - Trudeau did that all on his own and long before the US election. Trump taking sides in the election is more likely to support the other parties than the one he wants.
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 1 minute ago, dwy000 said: Trump didn't get rid of Trudeau - Trudeau did that all on his own and long before the US election. Trump taking sides in the election is more likely to support the other parties than the one he wants. That's what I said, he wanted Trudeau out.
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 6 minutes ago, cubsfan said: That's what I said, he wanted Trudeau out. He may have wanted him out (and I have no idea why other than rumors of Melania's crush) but he had nothing to do with it actually happening. The guy had a 25% approval rating. He was doomed long ago. Edited January 23 by dwy000
RichardGibbons Posted January 23 Posted January 23 4 minutes ago, cubsfan said: Why did Trudeau coming running down to Mar-a-Lago to help save his ass? You find something unusual about a country's leader visiting the leader-elect of its most important ally and trading partner who is threatening to dissolve that co-operative relationship?
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) No, not at all. It's clear that when Trump won the election, Trudeau was dead as a doornail. And if he could have reasoned with Trump to not impose economic sanctions, perhaps Trudeau would have had a slight chance. Trump didn't take the bait, in spite of Trudeau's groveling. Everybody won, except Justin. But the warning shot has been sent to the next leadership thanks to Justin's downfall. Edited January 23 by cubsfan
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 5 minutes ago, cubsfan said: No, not at all. It's clear that when Trump won the election, Trudeau was dead as a doornail. And if he could have reasoned with Trump to not impose economic sanctions, perhaps he would Trudeau might have had a slight chance. Trump didn't take the bait, in spite of Trudeau's groveling. Everybody won, except Justin. But the warning shot has been sent to the next leadership thanks to Justin's downfall. The opposition to Trudeau (including his own party) used the trip to Florida against him and it helped ensure his demise. I'm not sure what message that sends to the next Prime Minister but you can be sure they will all run on the premise of pushing back on Trump harder than the other guy. Kowtowing loses votes not gains them.
RichardGibbons Posted January 23 Posted January 23 15 minutes ago, cubsfan said: No, not at all. It's clear that when Trump won the election, Trudeau was dead as a doornail. And if he could have reasoned with Trump to not impose economic sanctions, perhaps Trudeau would have had a slight chance. Trump didn't take the bait, in spite of Trudeau's groveling. Everybody won, except Justin. But the warning shot has been sent to the next leadership thanks to Justin's downfall. To me, this is a very strange interpretation of Canadian politics, an elegant combination of dunning kruger and "I have a hammer so everything must be a nail." In early November, Trudeau was polling for one of the worst electoral wipeouts in Canadian history, and the polls didn't move for a couple months after Trump was elected. There are two things recently giving the Liberals hope for the next election. One is Mark Carney. The other is Donald Trump. All said, I agree that Trump will likely have a bit influence things now. If the next Canadian government is socialist, I think Trump will deserve a lot of credit for that change. The left wing parties are going to try really hard to run against Trump rather than their actual Canadian opponents.
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 If the next Canadian leader is as woke & irritating as Trudeau - I feel for you, and that will be your choice. Trudeau loved to use Trump as his piñata, like he was going to save the world from the big bad Trump - and that's fine, cause it's politics. Trump plays that game real well. If the next guy goes the Justin route - expect a lot more trolling, tariffs, etc from Trump. All of America is behind him this time around. Wokeness & silliness is ending here.
RichardGibbons Posted January 23 Posted January 23 Yeah, if that happens, I feel sorry for us, too. We really gotta start taking leadership and the economy seriously, and stop with the left-wing racist stuff.
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 (edited) 8 minutes ago, cubsfan said: If the next Canadian leader is as woke & irritating as Trudeau - I feel for you, and that will be your choice. Trudeau loved to use Trump as his piñata, like he was going to save the world from the big bad Trump - and that's fine, cause it's politics. Trump plays that game real well. If the next guy goes the Justin route - expect a lot more trolling, tariffs, etc from Trump. All of America is behind him this time around. Wokeness & silliness is ending here. I don't think it's accurate to say all of America is behind him on tariffs on Canada. Mexico maybe but not Canada - there are no drugs coming from Canada. The fact that people on this board (who i consider to be on the right end of the intelligence bell curve) are scratching their heads to figure out what the purpose of the tariffs are tells you that it's not a widely shared view. And when prices for many things go up even more people will be asking questions. Just wait until those Joe investors get hit with lower home builds from the cost increases. Again, I'd ask, what is the point of the tariffs? There are no drugs coming from Canada and free trade that governs the relationship is the one from the previous Trump term so he cant be claiming that's unfair. So....why? Edited January 23 by dwy000
gary17 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 there's a nice CBC piece by Andrew Cheng that talks about whether Trump has some valid concerns about drugs from Canada - Canadians should watch basically it's like COVID testing, you don't test, there are no cases. no policing, so nobody's getting caught. It's that simple. Liberals are gaslighting Canadians that
dwy000 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 2 minutes ago, gary17 said: there's a nice CBC piece by Andrew Cheng that talks about whether Trump has some valid concerns about drugs from Canada - Canadians should watch basically it's like COVID testing, you don't test, there are no cases. no policing, so nobody's getting caught. It's that simple. Liberals are gaslighting Canadians that Canada had it's largest drug bust ever yesterday. They were drugs from Mexico that came thru the US. The US's own analysis of drug traffic sources (from multiple administrations) don't even list Canada. India is higher.
cubsfan Posted January 23 Posted January 23 6 minutes ago, dwy000 said: I don't think it's accurate to say all of America is behind him on tariffs on Canada. Mexico maybe but not Canada - there are no drugs coming from Canada. The fact that people on this board (who i consider to be on the right end of the intelligence bell curve) are scratching their heads to figure out what the purpose of the tariffs are tells you that it's not a widely shared view. And when prices for many things go up even more people will be asking questions. Just wait until those Joe investors get hit with lower home builds from the cost increases. Again, I'd ask, what is the point of the tariffs? There are no drugs coming from Canada and free trade that governs the relationship is the one from the previous Trump term so he cant be claiming that's unfair. So....why? It's my opinion that most of the country is fully behind him on the Border Security issue. There are drugs and immigrants coming into the country from Canada, and it's increased a lot the last 4 years. But the bigger picture is this. The USA takes care of Canada's security needs. That's very clear. So view Trump's trolling to Justin & future leaders as just that. Seal the border, keep it sealed. And if there are unfair tariffs on US goods - expect retaliation. It's not like your spending $800B on your own defense.
Recommended Posts