It Doesn't Sound Good

 

Given the scarcity of information surrounding the putative trade deal between Canada and the U.S., I can only rely on my gut in this post. From what I have read, it sounds to me like Canada has folded once more rather than confront the U.S. and its trade aggression against our country. The Globe and Mail reports Dominic LeBlanc as saying that Canada 

protected supply management, but he didn’t respond when asked about the result of negotiations to lower sectoral tariffs levelled under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.

American trade envoy Jamieson Greer,  

said on social media that the deal includes “market access for all American goods, economic security commitments, digital trade alignment.”

I smell capitulation here. In any event, if the deal is as bad of a sellout as I suspect it is, clearly our negotiating team cares not a whit for Canadian public opinion, which has expressed real vehemence against a bad deal. Here are some letters from The Star that express that view. 

Canada needs to stop trying to appease Trump and finally call his bluff on tariffs, Aug. 15

Thank you to Star business columnist David Olive.

It’s about time someone spelled it out in plain language: Canada should not be looking to make a deal. President Donald Trump is in trouble, and all we need to do is wait him out.

It has been clear from the beginning that Trump’s tariffs hurt the American consumer. The numbers David Olives quote clearly reflect Canada’s superior economic performance on many fronts, — our lower inflation, better job creation, stock market performance and foreign investment.

It’s time Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc takes notice of public sentiment. Either the Americans stand down or we stand up and walk away. Let Trump and his minions look elsewhere for a solution to the disaster of their making.

The Canadian public needs a show of strength and resolve.

We don’t need more concessions.

Enough is enough.

Phil Warne, Pickering

It’s time for Carney and Co. to put a stop to the bullying

The U.S. is putting pressure on Canada with tariff threats. It puts a great deal of pressure on Prime Minister Mark Carney.

However, our prime minister cannot put pressure on ordinary Canadians and he must not force us to buy American products.

It’s down to Canadian customers. So let’s join together and tell Trump and his like to take a hike and show them what civilized refusal to bullying looks likes.

Ajit Zacharias, Newcastle, Ont.

Canada must stop making concessions because now it’s expected by Trump

David Olive makes the useful observation Canada has more leverage than it has so far chosen to exercise.

The deeper problem is habitual. For years, the Canadian approach has resembled a man who keeps feeding the same raccoon ever-larger sandwiches in the hope it will eventually develop manners and leave the porch.

When one side makes clear that almost any concession is preferable to friction, the other has every incentive to keep raising the price. Unused leverage decays quickly. At some point, the polite posture is clearly a nervous tic.

David Woodard, Tampere, Finland

Why shouldn’t Canada push back on U.S. tariffs? What have we got to lose?

Why have we not heard from our federal government regarding the inclusion of an export tax on critical items the United States needs? Potash, electricity, aluminum, B.C. soft lumber, critical minerals come to mind.

We have seen conciliatory moves have only been viewed by the U.S. as weakness.

It has appeared, since the first tariffs were imposed upon Canada, our government has been in a reactive stance as opposed to taking the initiative and using all of our tools available to meet the U.S. as an equal at any negotiating table.

If they squeeze us, then we should be squeezing back.

And as a shoutout to support our Canadian journalists, our government needs to bring back the Digital Services Tax.

Eric Edelsward, Mississauga

As they say, more to come, but if our negotiators have sold us out, I would not be voting for the Liberals in any of the three upcoming by elections if I lived in one of those ridings. Our 'leaders' should be aware that there is more than one way for people to express their strongly-held views.

UPDATED: Keep Calm And Carry On

That's the advice of Justin Ling as as the deadline for Trump's new set of punitive tariffs fast approaches, and that strikes me as eminently wise, for any number of reasons:

The Americans are apparently still demanding we join Trump’s half-baked Golden Dome missile defence system, ditch our made-in-Canada procurement rules and get back to the business of buying almost exclusively American military hardware. Each should be a firm red line for us.

[W]ere the prime minister to brief the public about where things are at, I think he would find that most Canadians are ready to say: no deal.

Stubborn and prideful though it may be, it’s the right move. We are just three months from the U.S. midterm elections, which Trump has, thus far, failed to rig in his favour. If the Democrats can regain control of Congress, it will put Trump’s ability to levy tariffs in considerable doubt.

As well, we know, along with the rest of the world, that Trump's signature on a deal means nothing.

... Trump uses tariffs as a means of extortion — and after he’s successfully extorted his victims, we know he keeps the tariffs in place anyway.

Indeed, even the right-wing press is taking a hard line on these 'negotiations'. The National Post's Kelly McParland writes that talks with Trump are pointless.

Whatever the temporary pain, Canada would be far better off in the long run avoiding any sort of agreement that lets Washington claim the slightest victory in its attempt to bully concessions out of Ottawa.

Better to walk away, let the White House do its worst and deal with the consequences. That will inevitably be the result under this administration in any case.

If the reports are true, Washington is essentially demanding a surrender of our sovereignty:

special rights to Canadian minerals, required purchases of U.S. technologies, guaranteed access to Canadian resources, all of which represent a surrender of Canada’s right to do as it pleases with its assets.

Now’s as good a time as any to inform Washington Canada is uninterested in further pointless discussions, and let ordinary Americans get back to bearing the brunt of their president’s expensive obsession.

As I have written before on this blog, the national mood is one of defiance and anger, as well it should be. Mark Carney's government will also soon be facing three byelections, events that should give him pause if he is tempted to continue down the path of appeasement that has yielded nothing but more outrageous demands from Trump.  

Sometimes, the voice of the people demands to be heard and heeded.

UPDATE: And on the topic of the voice of the people, here's one that speaks for me:

Enough capitulation. The time is now to stand up to Trump

A clear message for Carney: Canadians will not tolerate any more concessions to Trump, Aug. 14

I am fed up with Prime Minister Mark Carney knuckling under to U.S. demands.

Enough is enough.

Now he’s telling Canadians to prepare to put U.S. liquor back on the shelves. No more. If Trump continues with his nonsense, then let’s play our ‘trump’ cards: electricity, steel, aluminum, fertilizer, lumber and oil. The U.S. is in dire need of all our resources, whether they want to admit it or not.

We need to get all the key players together who represent these resources and come up with a game plan.

Regardless of what Trump says, the American president is under pressure from major industries to keep CUSMA in place.

Premiers, put your money where your mouth is and stand up to Trump.

Larry Snow, Oakville

 

 

The Tide Is Turning

 

Throughout these past many months, I have been a frequent critic of Mark Carney's policy of appeasement toward the Americans. Concession after concession, as I have written in this blog, has yielded nothing but a demand for more, each servile submission being met only with contempt and no reduction of tariffs from the likes of U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greet. "Why would we reward the withdrawal of policies that should never have been implemented in the first place?" he has said.

Baffling to me have been the almost uniform expressions of faith in Carney, at least to judge by readers' comments in newspapers and in blogs. ("He knows what he's doing." "He's playing 4 D Chess with Trump." "Poilievre certainly couldn't do a better job.")

Now however, it would seem that Canadians are waking up after a long, complacent slumber, and that fact is not going unnoticed by Canada's negotiating team. At least I hope so. More about that in a moment.

First, the latest reports suggest U,S. demands that would challenge our very notion of sovereignty, including the following:

The U.S. is demanding a right of first refusal on Canadian critical minerals, that Canada complete its purchase of U.S. F-35 fighter jets, that Ottawa buy U.S. tech such as radar planes as part of joining Mr. Trump’s planned Golden Dome missile defence system, and that Washington receive some guarantee on future supplies of oil and gas, one Canadian and one U.S. source said.

The deal under discussion would see Mr. Trump lower – but not fully get rid of – his tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, autos and forest products, as well as refrain from hitting more products with tariffs on Aug. 19.

In exchange, Canada would eliminate its retaliatory tariffs on U.S. autos, agree to Washington’s interpretation of how dairy quotas should be allocated, and have provincial governments stop their Buy Canadian programs and boycotts of American alcohol, among other things.

As well, Greer has said that any retaliation on the part of Canada should talks fail will not be tolerated. 

All Canadians should be outraged by this contemptuous assault on our sovereignty, and their anger will not be limited to the U.S. if Carney caves to those demands. Andrew Phillips writes:

The public mood is shifting — and it’s shifting in ways that will make it even more difficult to get a deal.

Concessions a dirty word

Canadians are in no mood to make more compromises. They don’t want to keep giving up ground while getting nothing in return and facing the threat of yet more punishment down the road. “Concessions” has become a dirty word. There’s a stand-and-fight feeling across the land.

That will make it very tough for the Carney government to agree to anything that doesn’t include clear wins for Canada — an unlikely prospect when it comes with dealing with Trump & Co.

Phillips says that the goodwill and benefits of a doubt extended to Carney are reaching the end.

 Instead of Carney leading public opinion, his government is finding that public opinion is running ahead. If the Liberals think Canadians will accept the prime minister’s explanations for even more concessions, that it will be “trust Mark” once again, they’ll be taking a very high-risk bet.

The clearest evidence comes in the same polls that show Carney’s approval ratings still defying gravity. An Angus Reid survey shows only a bare seven per cent of Canadians willing to support concessions to head off more tariffs. Two-thirds support counter-tariffs — punching back, in other words. 

 The pundits are joining in as well. I can hardly count the number of columns I’ve read in the last couple of weeks urging the government to stand firm. One that stands out for its sheer vehemence is by Jen Gerson in The Line, under the headline “If Carney signs this deal, let’s be clear: it’s the beginning of our surrender.”

Gerson says it looks like Carney “is losing his nerve.” The deal his government is about to sign will be another cave-in to Trump that won’t be worth a thing. And “there is no better time to fight than right now.”

Earlier, Canadian negotiators warned Greer that they were reaching a cliff, and that the imposition of new tariffs next week will end trade talks. While this might only be a negotiating ploy, I hope they mean it.

We've been battered by the barbarians in Washington for long enough. National pride and sovereignty demand an end to our shameful efforts at appeasement. And although the "men in suits", i.e., our business 'betters' will likely condescend and tell us that anger is natural but not productive, it is time for that anger to be recognized as the legitimate expression of real Canadians, Canadians who are finally saying, "No more!"

UPDATED: An Immodest (And Deeply Offensive) Proposal

 

Accountability is a strange thing these days. People "take responsibility" when the public finds out they did something wrong, but very rarely do any consequences ensue. Errant public officials keep their positions, CEOs often maintain their jobs,  and celebrities simply say "That's not who I am," when caught in a racist or ill-advised social post that earns widespread condemnation from the online community. True accountability is exceedingly rare.

I suspect that for many of the monied amongst us, the very concept of accountability is an irritant, foisted upon them by their 'lessers'. Oh, how they must chafe under the rules of democracy, where every citizen has a potential voice (should they choose to vote) in the rules that govern them. It doesn't seem fair that the wealthy vote, at least in theory, carries only the same weight as everyone else's. Surely a change is needed so that accountability can be set on their terms.

At least that's the view of people like Shopify's Tobias Lutke. His premise is a simple one: voting rights should be tied to one's productivity,

suggesting that seniors and Canadians living in poverty should be denied the vote.

No liberal democracy has experimented with disenfranchising what in Canada would amount to more than 12 million people, or close to one-third of the total population.

In posts on X, Lütke had these words for Canada’s seniors: “New deal,” he wrote. “When you get your pension deal it’s locked in and guaranteed. But now you are a dependent and that means no voting, just like dependents under age. Enjoy the deal, let people with a stake in the future decide.”

As a senior, I find the idea that we have no stake in the future of our country to be deeply offensive. It essentially stereotypes us as layabouts living off the fat of the land, idlers who have nothing useful to offer or say about the policies and direction of Canada. Institutional memory seems to offend, perhaps even frighten, Lutke.

However, his ideas don't stop with simple disenfranchisement. He also says that the wealthier one is, the more votes one should have. He

endorsed a voting system floated by former banker Eric Thor that would see ballots weighted “proportional to the level of income tax you pay.” The system would be progressive and proportional, capped at five votes for those who pay $500,000 a year or more, while those who pay no income tax would not receive a vote. Lutke called it “good,” noting it would “reward productive people with leverage.”

What’s disturbing isn’t just the idea itself — a voting system that distributes ballots based on income tax paid — but also that publicly praising it adds to the public register an approach to self-government that reduces people to their perceived economic value. The next leap, which is barely a skip, is that the government should get out of the way and let the rich lead us all towards a libertarian utopia free from state regulation or any commitment to caring for those who are unable or unwilling to be “builders,” to use the parlance of tech types.

Democracy is imperfect and always evolving. Some shun their civic responsibility, evidenced by perennially poor turnouts at the ballot box. In a democracy, that is their choice, just as it is their right to vote for parties and ideas that some of us may not like. However, all of that is a far cry from what oligarchs like Lutke are suggesting. 

Such individuals may not like democratic accountability, but if they must have it, they want it set on their terms. One has merely to look at people like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to see where that would lead.

UPDATE: If you would like to know more about Shopify and Mr. Lutke, click here.

More On The Democrats

In my previous post, I wrote about the need for the Democratic Party establishment to lose its fear of embracing progressive policies that actually help people. Afterwards, I came across this brief video by Robert Reich, who expresses similar sentiments in a little over three minutes, probably much more effectively than I did.

As well, a lengthy article in The Guardian addresses the progressive movement within the party, which the Trump regime has helped to stoke, says Larry Jacobs, director at the University of Minnesota's Centre for the Study of Politics and Governance.

“There’s a sense that the Democrats have been patsies in the face of Donald Trump. When Democrats say they want to fight back, they mean it.

“Donald Trump has radicalised the Democratic party,” he said. “This revolt within the party would not have happened without Donald Trump. He is provoking a kind of earthquake, raising lots of unsettling questions within the Democratic party - its direction, its leadership, its policy priorities, its beholdenness to big donors.”

If the right can conceive a radical programme in documents such as Project 2025, why can the left not be similarly ambitious?

One of the biggest impediments facing progressives in the party is the fact that the 'traditionalists' ("timid incrementalists") are beholden to powerful interests, says Joseph Geevarghese, director of One Revolution, 

“Because some of their funding depends on corporate donors, moderates have to pull punches. They are not able to articulate the causes of people’s problems. You’ve got progressives who are able to call out the corporate class and the corruption of our politics and how that affects people’s standard of living.”

Norman Solomon, director of RootsAction and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, said: “One might say that hell has no fury like corporate Democrats scorned. I’m thrilled by the results in Michigan but at the same time I’m a bit apprehensive about the blowback from the powerful forces that have been accustomed to literally running the national Democratic party for many decades, arguably since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was so successful at the beginning of the 1990s.”

The DLC, founded by Al From, has the progressive movement in its sights.

From reflected this week: “We’ve been focusing on beating Republicans and the democratic socialists have been focused on beating us. We’ve got to fight back. We’ve got to make it harder for them.”

As well, the rhetoric from the Republican Party paints progressives as true threats to the very foundations of America.

Trump and the House speaker, Mike Johnson, have been seeking to revive a cold war-style panic by branding democratic socialists as “radical Marxists” and “godless communists”.

The Democrats have a history of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Continued internecine attacks against the party's progressive movement may well accomplish what Trump and his minions alone cannot. In my opinion, only by embracing a diversity of views that, yes, challenge the status quo so favoured by party traditionalists, can they stand a real chance of gaining power in the near future.

 

UPDATED: Inspiring Terror In America: The "S" Word

 And that word would be socialism.

Particularly in America, socialism seems to evoke an extreme response among those who prefer not to think like human beings but rather react, in Pavlovian manner, to dog-whistles. For the MAGAT crowd, socialism is indistinguishable from communism and would destroy all that is holy in America, including mom, apple pie, and baseball.  To embrace socialism is to hate your country.  

Or so the narrative goes and is believed by many. Consider the following: 

Now, it is easy to mock the profoundly ignorant. Unfortunately, however, they are not the only ones to be terrorised by any hint of socialism or real progressivism. The Democratic Party is also cowering. While the party has never been very comfortable with boat-rockers like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it was largely able to keep its powder dry until the advent of two events: the election of a Democratic Socialist, Zohran Mamdani, as NYC mayor, and the Michigan Democratic Senate primary victor, Abdul El-Sayed, a progressive who holds a number of 'controversial' views, including (horrors!) healthcare for all. 

An article on Axios after Mamdani won the mayor's race is instructive:

Many Democratic leaders and donors are panicking about Zohran Mamdani, the 33-year-old democratic socialist who won the party's nomination to be the next mayor of New York City.

Why it matters: Establishment Democrats looking to recover from 2024's losses fear Mamdani could hurt the party's brand nationally — while young progressives believe his formula could spread beyond New York.

• Democratic leaders largely rallied behind former Gov. Andrew Cuomo in New York's mayoral primary, and Mamdani's shocking victory Tuesday was the latest example of the party's establishment being disconnected from many of its own voters.

• The top two Democratic leaders in Congress, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, both New Yorkers, declined to endorse Mamdani even as they applauded his victory.
• New York Rep. Laura Gillen, from Nassau County, called Mamdani the "absolute wrong choice for New York."
• Rep. Tom Suozzi, also from Nassau County, said he had "serious concerns."

Many Democrat Party stalwarts are also nervous about Abdul El-Sayed, especially his critical view of Democrats' unconditional support for Israel, despite their genocidal depredations in Gaza.

El-Sayed, the child of Egyptian immigrants, ran on a left-wing platform with the backing of such liberal stalwarts as Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Stevens [his Democratic primary opponent] had the backing of Democratic leadership in Washington, an established record as an elected official in Michigan and deep financial pockets, including $32m from Aipac - the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Outside groups favoured her over El-Sayed by a margin of nine-to-one.

Aipac now plans to mount a campaign to defeat El-Sayed in the November election. 

 ... the group is unbowed and now appears willing to put what is expected to be tens of millions of dollars behind Mike Rogers, the Republican, as some of AIPAC’s major backers are urging, according to a half dozen people who have spoken with the group’s leaders.

The fear among many 'traditional' Democrats is that, in addition to his Israeli stance, El-Sayed's policies,  including government-sponsored health insurance, efforts to lower drug costs, higher taxes on the wealthy and campaign finance reform, may not play well to rural voters. 

Sadly, for far too long, progressivism has been treated as the third rail of politics, leaving one to conclude that what the people want and need does not necessarily coincide with the Democrats' needs. As far as I can tell, that need is to secure power. Why? Because Democrats want power. I see no grand vision there; I see no higher calling to serve the public, only that naked desire for power. And although I hope they do well in their mid-terms, I don't hold out hope of major directional changes, outside of curbing some of Trump's most egregious corruption.

Trump has turned the Republican Party into a far-right apparatus that benefits only the few. Perhaps it is time for the Democrats to embrace the idea of becoming a leftist party, one that truly takes the needs of the many as its blueprint for electoral success.

UPDATE: This letter from The Globe and Mail sheds some light on a major political disincentive to work for "ordinary" people:

American way

Re “Donald Trump has turned the United States into an economic banana republic” (Opinion, Aug. 1): A compelling picture of the United States functioning like a banana republic.

The rich growing conditions for “bananas” were well-fertilized on Jan. 21, 2010. In the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down spending limits on independent political expenditures by corporations as violations of First Amendment protections on free speech. In other words, the court equated money and speech in politics as having equal protections.

Political leaders paid attention to the millions upon millions of dollars in donations which started to flow from the very rich, and now seem to only pay lip service to voters individually and collectively. Only when the impacts of this decision are reversed can America return to the growing conditions required for grassroots democracy.

Martin Birt Uxbridge, Ont.

UPDATED: A Tiresome Man

 

I know I'm not the only one who finds the incessant government of Ontario ads tiresome, just like the man behind them. Self-promotion paid for by the taxpayers, (last year about $111 million), they paint a picture of Ontario that would be in economic and criminal peril were it not for the 'wise' stewardship of Premier Doug and his gang. If you have ever seen them (it is hard to escape them in this province), you know what I am talking about.

One of the ads extols the fact that they have never raised taxes. In these times, I'm not sure that is something to brag about. Although it is a topic people don't like to think about, given the increasingly more frequent and severe natural disasters fanned by climate change, increased taxes are necessary. Fires and floods abound. 

This past week, for example, St. Catherines was hit by two major storms, both times resulting in flooded basements and much property damage.

Mayor Matt Siscoe, himself a victim, 

said the flooding has hit thousands of homes.

 "I've driven through entire neighbourhoods where every single house was dealing with it, and that was [before] Sunday night. There are entire neighbourhoods where the driveways are filled with construction debris and furniture that's been destroyed.

"There were cars floating down the street."

Every worker in his office has had their homes flooded, and most of them will need basement tear-outs, said Siscoe.

Siscoe is calling on the Ontario and federal governments to provide St. Catharines with immediate assistance, and help communities pay for upgrading critical stormwater infrastructure to better prepare for such devastating storms.

At least in Ontario, that plea is falling on deaf ears. as the provincial government has offered to send a cadre of  volunteers to assist with the cleanup, but no new dollars.

St. Catherines is just a local canary in the coal mine. Climate change is accelerating. This summer we are still contending with over 170 wildfires in northwestern Ontario, smoke from which a few short weeks ago made going outside next to impossible. A quick look at national and international news demonstrates that the dangers posed by climate change are worldwide and unrelenting.

For a long time now, Doug Ford has tried to shield himself with a cape from his Captain Canada guise, but that shtick is wearing thin. A new poll reveals that only 24% approve of his performance as premier, and 72% disapproving. Ford's most recent misstep, which I wrote about here, is just the latest one that displays how out of touch with the people he is, seemingly favouring only those that support unbridled development as the expense of everything else.

It is heartening so many are seeing through the Ford facade, a fact also attested to by letters to the editor. Here are three such missives:

Premier Ford wants to make Ontario safer. He’s doing all the wrong things

Doug Ford’s ‘Protect Ontario’ ads and messaging are a scam trying to hide the damage he’s doing, June 26

Premier Ford, please stop catastrophizing and fear mongering with your full-page safety ads.

If you want to make Ontario safer, I suggest the following: increase funding to our hospitals, provide more money for women’s support and shelters, make radar and speed cameras mandatory, stop tearing up bike lanes, bring back funding you have slashed for fighting forest fires, provide greater support for our Indigenous communities, provide more housing for the needy so they don’t have to pitch a tent, work and listen to those who support folks with addictions rather than against them.

And, lastly, repeal Bill 97 with its totalitarian undertones, which more than anything else has created a very unsafe Ontario for all.

Matthew Marosszeky, Aurora, Ont.

Come election time, Ontarians must show Ford and Co. the door

My stomach churns every time I see one of the Ford government’s ads in print or on television regarding how they are making Ontario stronger and safer.

The ads tell us they are making Ontario safer by not allowing encampments in public parks. Have they no shame, no compassion? They will not increase assistance rates or do anything to give the less fortunate a chance to improve their lives, yet they are spending thousands on advertising.

This is blatant abuse of public funds and a clear lack of interest in the welfare of our citizens.

Premier Ford and his lackeys have had their chance and have blown it.

Vote them out.

Mary Louise Reiman, Hamilton

DiManno shines light on the truth of Ford’s follies

You lost the battle of Billy Bishop, Doug Ford. Now, give the city back its seat, July 31

Star columnist Rosie DiManno gave a great summary of Premier Doug Ford’s many terrible projects, which we are all paying for.

And we are paying for those awful ads.

Thank you Rosie.

Martha Gould, North Bay, Ont.

Ford has long fashioned himself as a man of the people. The problem is the people he serves are not ones I, or countless others, know.

UPDATE: Perhaps this ad reveals a greater truth about Doug Ford's Ontario: