Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They already showed the commitment to securing the border, they just did that to the tune of 1.3B and Trump said the tariffs are still going on us. That isn't accomplishing anything. As for the select items that was a joke. Oh no, not tariffs on Heinz ketchup and Canadian bourbon! Whatever will they do!

He was talking about the retaliatory tariffs that Canada imposed on US products such as ketchup and AMERICAN bourbon. The list of tariffs the last time was specifically targetting Republican states which is why products that primarily came from red states were picked.

[Fuzz]

Andy, I think the point you miss here is I don't think most people are saying we should use oil as a trade barrier in a way that would screw us badly, (or Alberta, if that's your only concern) but that that should not be loudly taken off the table, while throwing the rest of the country under the bus. Trump is a moron, and you have to negotiate from strength with him. It's all he knows. Strength is using the threat of our most powerful chip. We never have to commit to anything in this period. But to hobble ourselves like this doesn't make any sense, unless you are really playing another game(and Smith really only knows one game).


It comes down to, do you know of any expert negotiators whose first step is to tell their opponent the thing they need most isn't going to be used in the negotiation? Nobody does that. Because it's dumb. This is the issue. In private Smith could have told the other premiers whatever she wanted, but publicly she did the entire country a disservice(including Alberta) by behaving how she has. There are no wins to be found in her strategy.

[Paulie Walnuts]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...tion-1.7435612

Lmao what a ####ing loser. Don’t ever come back

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The easy solution is not going into conversations worried about winning or losing, that way you won’t feel like you’re conceding ground or risking a loss simply by answering questions or expanding on ideas. Basically, all that was ever asked is that you participate, but if it’s pointless to answer questions or expanding on your ideas, then it’s pointless to share them to begin with, so why bother?

Feeling that it’s not worth the effort is fine, even under the guise of setting your ego aside, but if you’re going to just redirect that effort into cosplaying as an amateur insult comic, then it becomes pretty easy for people to see through that posturing as ego takes over.

The first part is pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

Conversations/disagreements evolve. What can possibly start productive, even if just in intent, can always devolve into something else. As I have stated, I believe this is the case. We started with something that could have been somewhat productive, though mutually hostile (and neither of us clearly object), and due to a difference of opinion, and as far as I'm concerned, a fundamental lack of understanding, became something i view as no longer worth the effort.

My unwillingness to continue rehashing the same talking points over and over with you in particular, is not due to a lack of conviction in my views, a lack of understanding of the subject matter in which we were debating, or fearing being preceived as taking a "w" or "l". Its because I've seen enough of the conversation to know any further expansion is likely to devolve as described as above and have no tangible purpose.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

They already showed the commitment to securing the border, they just did that to the tune of 1.3B and Trump said the tariffs are still going on us. That isn't accomplishing anything. As for the select items that was a joke. Oh no, not tariffs on Heinz ketchup and Canadian bourbon! Whatever will they do!

I think he's concerned with more than our southern border. He's said as much, commenting on our NATO 2% defense budget "commitment".

And say what you want about placing targeted tariffs, it worked. Placing tariffs on a whole bunch of very specific items can add up to a lot regardless of how ridiculous cherry picking any one item may seem. It also doesn't expose you to the unintended consequence of self harm in the process.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Andy83

The first part is pretty much exactly what I'm saying.

Conversations/disagreements evolve. What can possibly start productive, even if just in intent, can always devolve into something else. As I have stated, I believe this is the case. We started with something that could have been somewhat productive, though mutually hostile (and neither of us clearly object), and due to a difference of opinion, and as far as I'm concerned, a fundamental lack of understanding, became something i view as no longer worth the effort.

My unwillingness to continue rehashing the same talking points over and over with you in particular, is not due to a lack of conviction in my views, a lack of understanding of the subject matter in which we were debating, or fearing being preceived as taking a "w" or "l". It’s because I've seen enough of the conversation to know any further expansion is likely to devolve as described as above and have no tangible purpose.

And yet you continue to put significant effort into crafting a narrative (which is observably false) around all the reasons why you shouldn’t answer questions on the topic, so much so that you’ve surpassed the amount of effort those questions ten times over.

I’m not really sure what tangible purpose that serves, if that’s you’re concern, so if you wouldn’t mind, I’d be happy to have you redirect any further effort over convincing people why you definitely could answer simple questions because you totally have those answers but definitely won’t because (insert reason) and just put that in to the answering the questions:

- How will tariffs (excluding O&G) “strengthen the relationship?”
- How is our pension and the RCMP harming Alberta.
- How is the federal government giving money to municipalities in Alberta harmful to Alberta.
- In a negotiation, how is one person who is not authorized to make any sort of terms going against the wishes of the people responsible for that negotiation and advocating for themselves not “undermining” the position?

You can start with just one and we can go from there. But I really don’t feel like reading another sentence about how you’re not engaging without you picking up on the irony of it. I’m literally just here to here your thoughts on the subject, couldn’t care less about your thoughts on why you shouldn’t have to give your thoughts on it.

[BoLevi]

Canadians (especially those in this thread), are still perceiving Trump and the US as an enemy. They are a counterparty. These are two very different things.

In negotiating with Trump, and his team, Canada can allow Trump to "win". There's nothing wrong with that. In this case, we need to give Trump and off-ramp to the situation, so he can still claim he is winning. We just have to do this in a way that ensures we aren't losing, but also winning. Most of the suggestions here, especially those including oil export tariffs, are precisely the wrong way to go about this.

What are things that can look like an off-ramp? Defense spending. Border Security. These may be enough, but unlikely.

Other things, like opening up dairy to US exports, and getting rid of supply management. Also good. Also, simultaneously helps the Canadian consumer. The best case for Canada here is looking like "rolling over" - just doing it with things that don't escalate the trade dispute more than needed, and aren't really negatives for us. Then we are giving Trump the "win" he wants, while also winking at each other about how we are doing the winning. Sometimes it's not about maintaining your own ego.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Until 1.5M US homes go dark with no electricity in the middle of Winter. And no, despite what some Republicans try and claim the US cannot just make up for that on their side. Time to play hardball.

This is a poor attempt to exercise leverage. Trump's main concern with these tariffs is to make himself look like a winner. It also works for him if he can use an outside enemy to elevate his position. If we "shut the lights off" for $1.5mm houses in the US, then we look like the villains, and Trump gets someone he can rail against for the next two years. This is the problem with actually trying to use this type of export leverage - Trump can use it to great advantage with domestic politics. (If you think you can convince the US population that Canada turning off oil or electricity is Trump's fault, you should probably look at how good Trump is at playing this game.)

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well they were at Carney's, so it's a reasonable question.

NDP supporters Pickles

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

- In a negotiation, how is one person who is not authorized to make any sort of terms going against the wishes of the people responsible for that negotiation and advocating for themselves not “undermining” the position?

If she is not authorized to to make terms, and does not have the legal authority to limit Canada's oil export policies, then how is she undermining anything?

[MelBridgeman]

Pep got mopped!

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

No, they would cave and do away with the tariffs. What other choice do they have?

Enact 100% tariffs and completely destroy our economy. They can afford to stomach some massive pain short term and still survive. We can’t. And if you think the US would permit us to unilaterally allow people in major metropolitan centres freeze, cause chaos to their economy and essentially shut down civilization on the eastern seaboard etc I don’t know what to say. I’m quite certain that would be equivalent to terrorism in many eyes in the US and they would act accordingly.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

If she is not authorized to to make terms, and does not have the legal authority to limit Canada's oil export policies, then how is she undermining anything?

Because she’s poisoned any illusion of unity and positioned herself as a headache for the side of negotiations she’s on that Trump can easily manipulate.

[BoLevi]

Best case scenario is they would enact legislation to subsidize domestic energy production. They would likely do the same if we actually threatened the oil supply - they would incentivize refineries and the industry to diversify their ability to use multiple suppliers of oil and gas. Or they would come back with a significant escalation to the dispute.

[ThePrince]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

Just to clarify, Canada does not import most of its refined products. In October 2024, Canada produced just a tad over 2 million barrels per day of refined product and imported about 144,000 bbls. So it’s not even a close call.

That’s not correct.

Canada consumes closer to 2.4-2.5 million barrels per day, so it imports closer to 500,000 bpd of refined products.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Because she’s poisoned any illusion of unity and positioned herself as a headache for the side of negotiations she’s on that Trump can easily manipulate.

Negotiating based on illusions is not a good idea.

The real negotiating mistake that was made here was by Central Canada, saying that energy controls were on the table. I think that was mostly Ford. Stupid move. That was the moment disunity was chosen, not Smith's response. Central Canada decided that maintaining unity was less important than putting on the table an option that we would never be able to use anyway. They managed to shoot themselves in both feet with one bullet. Impressive, if you think about it.

Indeed, the entire idea of having the premiers all get together to talk about negotiating strategy implies disunity and bolsters the "illusion" that the premiers have influence. You claim they don't have such influence, so presumably that bit of kabuki theater had very negative consequences to Canada's negotiating position.

Your position is paradoxical.

[Fuzz]

^ Hold up, who said what first? I was sure Smith started the conversation, and Ford responded. Was it really the other way?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

^ Hold up, who said what first? I was sure Smith started the conversation, and Ford responded. Was it really the other way?

I'm happy to be corrected if I have it backwards, as I'm not certain. But I thought it was Ford first.

[Fuzz]

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/pol...-tariff-threat



Right, OK so Ford puts his provinces industry forward and says it's a tool in the toolbox. This is good negotiating. The next day Smith says she won't put her provinces industry forward, and that's when it all went off the rails. I don't see where Ford asked her specifically too, but maybe he did. Either way, Smith responded in the worst way possible for Canada. It hadn't even specifically been put on the radar until she lit it up.

[iggy_oi]

I think her response was worse for Alberta than it was for Canada.