UPDATED: Who Do You Trust?

 

One of the pleasures of writing this blog is the opportunity it gives for expressing my and others' views. Although I often draw upon the thoughts and analyses of others, I try to frame them through my own observations and experiences, having lived a reasonably long life.

Such a life has taught me the importance of being aware of events that affect our country and our world. Reading as widely as I can has helped me hone some critical-thinking skills, skills I always say are in development, never fully realized.

All of which is my rather long-winded way of saying that when I offer my many criticisms of our federal government, led by Mark Carney, I do so with critical-thinking, analysis and personal values uppermost in my mind. And as I have stated many times here, I believe that, despite some really good trade-diversification initiatives, Carney's submissiveness to the Trump regime is leading us nowhere good.

In that conclusion I am not alone. Well-regarded writer Luke Savage has similar concerns, suggesting there is a huge gap in the rhetoric Carney used in his election address and his actual practice, promising muscularity against Trump but providing only mewling responses.

Since last year’s election, however, the Carney government has repeatedly assumed a far more deferential and obsequious posture in its dealings with Washington. In trade negotiations, it capitulated to U.S. tech giants by abandoning plans for a Digital Services Tax, dropped retaliatory tariffs and introduced draconian border legislation that has been justly criticized by human rights groups.

Moreover, this approach has also taken us down some dark avenues.

Earlier this year, Carney offered swift backing for the illegal U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran (even as that war’s earliest casualties included nearly 200 children killed in the bombing of a school.) He has similarly backed the administration’s Orwellian “Board of Peace” plans in Gaza, indicated a willingness to sign on to its proposed “Golden Dome” defence initiative, refrained from criticizing Marco Rubio’s attempts to dismantle the International Criminal Court through coercion and sought to reassure American investors by pledging to help “Make America Great Again.” Last fall, the government also invited Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts — a key Trump ally and architect of the far-right blueprint Project 2025 — to attend a closed-door meeting with members of cabinet (the visit was ultimately cancelled, almost certainly thanks to the ensuing backlash.) Does anyone seriously think this was what Canadians elected the Carney-led Liberals to do?

Even worse was to lend, by attendance, Canada's imprimatur to a summit convened by Marco Rubio on "left-wing terrorism" (in all practical terms, anyone who challenges the Trump agenda).

 [T]he conference is part of a wider neo-McCarthyite push to criminalize political opponents (as journalist Ken Klippenstein notes, related administration documents even make explicit reference to the likes of Black Lives Matter, New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and the union that represents Amazon workers.)

When asked about Canada’s attendance at the summit, officials at Foreign Affairs said only that the government “reg­u­larly exchanges views with other coun­tries on viol­ent extrem­ism trends,” further stressing the “long history” of co-oper­a­tion with the United States in the fight against ter­ror­ism. 

Savage says some will argue that Carney is simply doing what is necessary  to reduce the damage inflicted by the deranged Trump. If that is the case, we have gotten little from such acts of prostitution. But the writer posits another possibility:

But we should also consider the possibility that Carney’s apparent promise of a new and more independent global posture was never really genuine in the first place.

Both at home and abroad, the Trump threat serves as a pretext for a form of would-be pragmatism that is really just conservatism by any other name. Within its own borders, Canada is increasingly being run less like a country and more like a business.

There is much evidence to support this thesis:

[Canada's] abandonment of climate targets and gutting of environmental regulations; its tax cuts for the wealthy; its slash and burn attitude toward the public sector; and its overzealous embrace of AI. 

This also helps explain the very stark difference between the prime minister’s campaign rhetoric and his incessant pursuit of cosy relations with Washington. After all, key planks of the Carney program — from the construction of new oil and gas infrastructure to the ramping up of military procurement and the supercharging of AI — will ultimately require the close involvement of U.S.-based companies and investors. Among other things, that practically guarantees strategic alignment with the Trump administration and the maintenance of friendly relations with America’s unapologetically pro-corporate president as long as he remains in office. 

Many will be loathe to accept such a critical take on Mr. Carney's government, preferring the pleasing illusion that he is moving all of us in the right direction for the right reasons. However, if, as Luke Savage suggests, something more sinister is at work, we would be well-advised to look a little closer at our prime minister and his policies, and bear in mind the old advice about not being fooled by a wolf in sheep's clothing. 

UPDATE: Here's an interesting thought from a Globe and Mail reader. While I don't agree with his thoughts on alcohol, he poses a question many of us have probably had:

While I agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s recent plan to rule out restricting exports of oil or natural gas to the U.S. in retaliation for tariffs and insults, I question why he chose to make that position public. He has repeatedly said that Canada would not negotiate in public, yet this announcement seems to do exactly that.

A more effective response would be to charge world market prices for the energy we export to the United States. That move would benefit Canada far more than restricting supply and is better than retaliatory tariffs, which ultimately raise costs for Canadians.

And speaking of restrictions, removing American liquor from store shelves was a mistake. Put it back and make Ottawa’s task easier.

Peter M. Gallop Toronto

He's Done It Again

 

We probably all remember an activity in elementary school called show-and-tell. It consisted of bringing something to school to explain to classmates how it worked, what it was for, etc. It was an activity designed to foster public speaking and student confidence and, according to some, helped build character. It was part of most people's early education.

I can only imagine it was one of Mark Carney's favourite activities when he was a youngster. Unfortunately, that early experience does not seem to have served him well as prime minister. How else can one explain how he keeps telegraphing to Donald Trump and his minions our negotiation 'strategy' (if it can even be called that) in advance of CUSMA renegotiations and pending punishing new tariffs of 50%, set to begin in August.

Despite averring that "everything is on the table" in anticipation of those new tariffs, Mr. Carney has essentially shown and told the opposite.

Prime Minister Mark Carney is ruling out restricting Canada’s oil and gas supply to the U.S. in the face of President Donald Trump’s expanding trade war, removing a potent bargaining chip as Ottawa seeks a deal with Washington.

Mr. Carney’s government is also planning to scrap a tax on online streaming services such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, the latest in a series of concessions to U.S. trade demands for which Canada has not received anything in return.

Make no mistake - oil would be a potent bargaining chip, and even though we might be very reluctant to turn off the taps, there are other possibilites, such as substantial export taxes.

The U.S. is heavily dependent on Canadian oil – importing about four million barrels a day, nearly two-thirds of all its petroleum imports – making it a powerful potential leverage point.

As well, Carney justified another capitulation as an affordability measure:

Mr. Carney also defended Ottawa’s decision to end a 5-per-cent tax that streamers must pay to support the creation of Canadian television, movie and music content. A government lawyer wrote in a July 17 court document that Ottawa intends to “eliminate” the levy.

The Prime Minister insisted on Wednesday that the policy U-turn was about keeping streaming services affordable. “Most Canadians have one or two or more of these streamers and it’s real money. This stuff adds up.”

These most recent measures are but part of a larger pattern:

Since taking office last year, Mr. Carney has made a string of concessions to Mr. Trump, such as rolling back retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods and cancelling a planned digital services tax. Earlier this month, Ottawa agreed to give the U.S. half the net toll revenue from the new Gordie Howe International Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, even though Canada paid the entire $6.4-billion price tag to build the span.

The result of these appeasement measures? 

So far, however, Mr. Trump has only increased tariffs on Canada and the two sides have not reached Mr. Carney’s promised trade deal.

Former U.S. diplomat Scotty Greenwood sees the folly of such capitualatory measures, saying we need to show strength to the Americans:

“Canadians have been hesitant or reticent to flex their muscle. It’s time to be really tough and really flex,” she said. “With this particular President, this particular counterparty, you’ve got to negotiate from a position of strength.”

I 'm sure I am but one of millions of Canadians growing increasingly dismayed by Mark Carney's 'tactics'. Indeed, they suggest only that he is preparing to bring just one more thing to his show-and-tell performance with the United States:

 

 

Trump's Trade Tantrum

 

I was going to write about something else today, but now that Trump has had his predictable tantrum over the above ad, perhaps this will serve as a wakeup call to Mark Carney and his government that any hope of securing a stable, long lasting trade agreement with the U.S. is but a sad delusion.

Trump had this to say:

U.S. President Donald Trump says he is terminating all trade negotiations with Canada over an advertisement by the Ontario government that uses the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan's own words to send an anti-tariff message to American audiences.

In a late-night post to his Truth Social platform, Trump attacked the ad, which he attributed to Canada rather than Ontario, as fraudulent and fake.

"TARIFFS ARE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE NATIONAL SECURITY, AND ECONOMY, OF THE U.S.A." Trump wrote. "Based on their egregious behavior, ALL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH CANADA ARE HEREBY TERMINATED."

In a later post on Friday morning, Trump claimed “CANADA CHEATED AND GOT CAUGHT!!!"

"They fraudulently took a big buy ad saying that Ronald Reagan did not like Tariffs, when actually he LOVED TARIFFS FOR OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS NATIONAL SECURITY,” he wrote. “Canada has long cheated on Tariffs, charging our farmers as much as 400 [per cent]. Now they, and other countries, can’t take advantage of the U.S. any longer."

Clearly, the time is drawing very near when we have to assert both our trade independence and sovereignty, as the mad king will not stop until he has crushed both. Appeasement attempts have been an abject failure, and we need to assert the leverage we have: energy and rare earth minerals come readily to mind. 

The only bright spot that has emerged thus far, marking a departure from our usual supine reaction to the U.S., is the fact that there are going to be tangible penalties for both Stellantis and GM over their ceasing production at two plants in Ontario.

As CBC News first reported, the two multinational manufacturers will no longer be exempt from paying Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on as many U.S.-assembled vehicles as before.

The move is an attempt to put pressure on the companies to reinvest in Canadian production and workers to get this benefit back and avoid a big tariff bill.

"This action follows the automakers' unacceptable decision to scale back their manufacturing presences in Canada, directly breaching their commitments to the country and Canadian workers," the government said in a late-night media release.

And those penalties will be consequential.

 The ministers announced that effective immediately, the government is lowering the amount of American-assembled vehicles GM can import tariff-free by 24 per cent and cutting Stellantis's amount by 50 per cent.

"I think Canadians and the industry want the government to be tough on companies that don't own up to those partnerships that in many cases have been worth billions," said Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association.

"This is a great move."

While these tariffs will raise the Canadian price of GM and Stellantis vehicles, the obvious answer, and likely intent of the penalties, is for consumers to avoid buying their products. Since Canada represents a very important market for American cars, this move will hurt their profits considerably.

Perhaps we are finally deciding that we will no longer give our lunch money to the bully. 

 

UPDATED: All Is Not Lost?

There are many days when it's hard to feel hope. It is especially true when we think about the relentless bullying Canada receives at the hands of the mad king, Donald Trump. High tariffs, or high tariff threats, are  the only arrows in his small quiver, and our economy is suffering as a result. Sadly, in sharp contrast to the rousing, even bellicose, Liberal rhetoric of our last federal election, it seems we are turning over, with nary a word, our lunch money to the fascist and receiving nothing in return, just more abuse. 

Capitulation is never a pretty sight; however, Mark Carney refuses to get tough, even undoing counter-tariffs that he had imposed against the United States. The conclusion I draw is that we are giving up the fight. The soothing promise of better relations in the future with Trump (i.e., a renegotiation of the CUSMA agreement) seems to be the justification for our meekness, but there is nothing at all to suggest a winning strategy is at play here.

Jim Stanford says it doesn't have to be this way. The insufferable insistence by the U.S. that they alone will manufacture North American automobiles cannot be allowed to stand, and Stellantis's announcement that it will commit to a $13-billion American expansion at the expense of its Brampton works demands a strong Canadian response.

[T]he sheer gall of Stellantis’ action is shocking. It is breaking explicit commitments made to all its key partners: its own workers (in a binding labour contract), the federal and provincial governments (in binding covenants attached to various subsidies), and auto parts companies (which invested hundreds of millions in new tooling and capital for Brampton).

Despite the fact that our auto exports to the U.S. are down considerably, Stanford warns of something even worse:

If corporations respond to Trump’s extortion by shifting long-run investment to the U.S., Canada’s industrial capacity will be destroyed.

That’s why the Stellantis decision cannot stand. It would set a precedent that quickly spreads into all other high-tech industries.

It’s no coincidence these 232 tariffs are aimed at every one of Canada’s high-tech success stories: auto, trucks, steel and other basic metals, soon to be joined by aerospace, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, industrial machinery and more.

Strong government action is required:

Last year Stellantis sold 130,000 new vehicles here — most imported, most of those from the U.S. At present Stellantis mostly avoids Canada’s 25 per cent counter-tariff on vehicle imports from the U.S., thanks to a clever Canadian duty remission program.

 Ottawa should threaten full 25 per cent tariffs on all Stellantis imports (costing $1.5 billion per year), until it recommits to completing the tooling at Brampton, paying interim income support to its workforce and then fully utilizing the plant when it’s finished.

Pushing back against Stellantis will send a signal to companies in every other high-tech industry. If you want access to Canada’s market, Canada’s resources and Canada’s supply chains, you must maintain a full-fledged production footprint here.

That Stellantis made such the decision it did is a testament to the abject failure of the Carney government's appeasement efforts, which included

multiple concessions and personal flattery. While we talk nice, [Trump] races full-speed to steal as many high-tech, high-wage jobs as he can. 

I read this morning that Industry Minister Melanie Joly summoned Stellantis to  Ottawa to explain itself. I'm sure she gave them a stern talking to, and threatened unspecified 'consequences'. However, since the Carney government has raised appeasement to a national level, I have my deep doubts whether anything substantive will be done, and people like Jim Stanford will likely find that his strong, sound advice will be not be taken under advisement. 

UPDATE: Well, another one bites the dust. GM Canada has announced the closure of the Ingersol plant, putting 1200 people out of work. It is the plant that the provincial and federal governments invested $500 million towards retooling to make electrified Bright Drop vans. The company cites low demand, but assured everyone that they "look forward to continuing our discussions with the government and our partners to identify other opportunities."

I'll just bet they do, eh?