Quote:
Originally Posted by Slava
OK, but to me, there are a couple of considerations here. First, the government can continue to negotiate and deal with the US. Like them or not, they are still the government, and they still have authority. It's not like they all leave for vacation because of this (although if you're a CPC MP in Alberta, you could, and we all know that you'll win your seat anyway!).
But the truth is, it's in the Liberals' best interest to get some kind of agreement or carve-out. This would let them campaign on that, and it would obviously be positive. I realize that this is largely out of their control, just as it would be if the CPC was in power.
This brings me to another point. Despite how they're seen at home, the Trudeau Liberals were regarded as having dealt well with the Trump administration. A couple of weeks ago, the Globe and Mail published a piece about the Canadian negotiators (led by Freeland), and I saw an article this morning on Bloomberg that called them the "American whisperers."
|
It's in all Canadian's best interests to negotiate a carve out and there will for sure be Canadian government representatives 'negotiating' with the Trump administration. That said with a lame duck Prime Minister they have zero leverage or practical ability to meaningfully negotiate. Anything that requires a vote in parliament cannot be offered up. Any trade countermeasures that require any provincial cooperation that would actually hurt the US back will be tougher to manage with a lame duck leader in place.
There's little incentive for the US to do anything but collect tariffs while waiting for a government who has a real mandate to show up. 50% of the trade deficit is in Oil and Gas and the US are an oil exporter. A 25% tariff is likely to mostly be absorbed by Canadian producers and strand the marginal barrel in Canada and place a majority of the impact on Canadians rather than US consumers at US gas pumps.