Canadian Federal Politics Thread v5

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by 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.

I believe it was actually Legault in Quebec who was the first Premier to #### on Ford's electricity threat in that the next morning at a press conference with Premier Furey he said he would not threaten an electricity export ban.

https://www.youtube.com/live/wR1IKWM...Tv8Kb49I-r3BOs

[Fuzz]

Well then Legault shouldn't be the face of a negotiation, either.

[flamesfever]

It was obvious from the start, that Ford and Smith were the most exposed Premiers in a trade war...Ford for the car industry, and Smith for the oil and gas industry. At that point, they should have been communicating, and ironing out their differences in private...hopefully coming to some resolution which avoided what ended up happening publicly. After all, they are both Conservatives, although Ford has sure been friendly with JT lately. However, you never know what will happen when you have a strong woman against a strong man.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by 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.

There seems to be some ambiguity about the whole thing. Ford spoke interchangeably about "energy" and "everything being on the table" for Canada...but in other cases he spoke about electricity.

As for good negotiating. It absolutely was not good negotiating. He's a premier, he has no power to negotiate, remember?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

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.

No they wouldn't. What can they do? It isn't terrorism at all, we are not obligated to supply them with anything. Are they going to attack us? No they are not, we are a NATO country loved by everyone. Guess how fast China and Russia would jump on board with us because it's a way to take down the US. If the US was stupid enough to attack us they would end up a third world country after the rest of the world turned on them. It wouldn't even get that far because the minute he starts blathering about declaring war on Canada somebody is going to make a decision in the Homeland Security and put a bullet in his head to avoid WW3. So again, what can he do? He is trying to bluster his way into screwing us and the Trump simps on here think we should appease him and bend over and take it. You shut their energy off and watch how fast he backpedals and tries to strike a fair deal.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well then Legault shouldn't be the face of a negotiation, either.

Quebec is very special when it comes to Team Canada though. He wanted Quebec to have it's own representation along side the federal Team Canada representatives when negotiating the tariff issue.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

There seems to be some ambiguity about the whole thing. Ford spoke interchangeably about "energy" and "everything being on the table" for Canada...but in other cases he spoke about electricity.

As for good negotiating. It absolutely was not good negotiating. He's a premier, he has no power to negotiate, remember?

What should be obvious to everyone is that our federal leadership has sucked leading to Premiers wanting to fill the void which is why people like Ford, Smith, Legault and others are stepping out of line. If they had faith in Trudeau and his government to lead the country through a crisis they would approach things much differently.

[Ped]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

It was obvious from the start, that Ford and Smith were the most exposed Premiers in a trade war...Ford for the car industry, and Smith for the oil and gas industry. At that point, they should have been communicating, and ironing out their differences in private...hopefully coming to some resolution which avoided what ended up happening publicly. After all, they are both Conservatives, although Ford has sure been friendly with JT lately. However, you never know what will happen when you have a strong woman against a strong man.

Or a dumb, stubborn woman against a dumb, stubborn man.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

What should be obvious to everyone is that our federal leadership has sucked leading to Premiers wanting to fill the void which is why people like Ford, Smith, Legault and others are stepping out of line. If they had faith in Trudeau and his government to lead the country through a crisis they would approach things much differently.

Our government isn’t even sitting now since rock head prorogued it again for the hundredth time.

Good timing to do that BTW.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Andy83

I could be wrong, it happens often, but I don't think anyone disputes the massive leverage we hold in our hydrocarbon reserves. I do, however, think what people who oppose using our reserves as a bargaining chip (myself included), think a better approach is using targeted tariffs as an initial strategy. I don't know this was necessarily the case, but I have to believe, the strategy the first go around was just that. I believe the strategy was to select very specific items, that would have a relatively low impact on Canadians, while having a relatively larger impact on Americans. Think products we have an analog for already in place. Not sure if you have been to Cuba, but if you have, think that. They have all the same things as us, but a lot of the products you buy are knockoffs. Products that serve the same purpose, but are often not as good, or at least not what we are use to.

Some examples of these targeted tariffs, it's believe were implimented the first go around were

bourbon
OJ
Heinz ketchup
Etc.

Each one of these has a fairly comparable alternative. Canadians wouldn't be greatly impacted by simply making a different choice. But US suppliers would feel a relatively greater impact.

Oil and gas reserves, though very valuable to the Americans, fails to check a very important box. Any disruption would certainly have a massive impact on Canadians and our economy. Arguably, it would have a larger impact on Canada than it would on the US.

Sure, there is a scenario where we put an export tax on the table and Trump flinches and very rapidly backtracks. But when we have a less harmful alternative for Canada, though admittedly less impactful alternative, why not start there and see where it leads.

All that said, I think if you could jump inside Trumps head, and sort through all the bull#### and bluster, you'd find these things aren't even the priority anyway. I think he's concerned more about our security, and in turn the US own security to the north. I think his threats on our sovereignty are his ####ed up way of highlighting this. I think if whoever the new PM ends up being, shows a commitment to our own defense all of this goes away.

I saw speculation of a tiered approach. Tier one being bourbon, peanut butter, stuff like that as you suggest. I forget what the second tier was but tier three was oil, gas, uranium, potash, various minerals, aluminum and included critical items from the majority of provinces.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I saw speculation of a tiered approach. Tier one being bourbon, peanut butter, stuff like that as you suggest. I forget what the second tier was but tier three was oil, gas, uranium, potash, various minerals, aluminum and included critical items from the majority of provinces.

Makes sense coming from a government that aims to make the average person and family suffer by increasing the cost of living in any way possible.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Our government isn’t even sitting now since rock head prorogued it again for the hundredth time.

Good timing to do that BTW.

It's starting to make sense why he did that, a real tinpot dictator. His last fu to Canada is gonna be a big one.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Our government isn’t even sitting now since rock head prorogued it again for the hundredth time.

Good timing to do that BTW.

This u?

Originally Posted by Goriders

I was talking with a buddy the other day and made the suggestion of no government for a couple of years. Like a time out.

Just leave us alone for a bit. We’ve had enough. Go think about what you have done. We’ll call you in 2 years.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

What should be obvious to everyone is that our federal leadership has sucked leading to Premiers wanting to fill the void which is why people like Ford, Smith, Legault and others are stepping out of line. If they had faith in Trudeau and his government to lead the country through a crisis they would approach things much differently.

Our system of government is exposed to an outsized risk if an incompetent leader is elected. No checks and balances or regional representation.

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well first, especially with regards to this topic, what hurts Alberta, hurts Canada and vice versa. In this case its one and the same.

Additionally, in a lot of scenarios id completely agree with you. In a typical negotiation it would be absolutely harmful to your own position if you take your own queen off the board before you even start. However there are several details of this particular prelude to a negotiation that are extremely noteworthy and reasons I'd tend to disagree with those points.

First, your most powerful chip only has power if your opponent truly believes it is a chip you might or even can play. Now, of course its pure speculation either way, no one outside Trump and his closest advisors (maybe even just him, advisors probably rarely know what he's going to do either) know the answer to this. I tend to lean on the side that he doesn't believe it's even a possibility we put this chip in the middle. I doubt he picks this fight if he believes it is a possibility (again, clearly speculation). Call him what you will, he knows with this particular item, any pain felt by them will be felt by us, and very likely much more damaging to us. Lack of infrastructure on both sides of an alternate supply line, are likely (and on our side definitely) not in place. While the economic impact in terms of actual dollars would be probably 2x-3x worse for the US, its MUCH easier/faster for them to replace our supply, than it is for us to replace their market. I use the terms easier and faster very loosely as nothing about it is easy or fast in either case. Even if you don't go down the worst case scenario, we apply an export tax, and the US cuts its Canadian O&G imports, to any degree, the impact seen here would be immense. Jobs lost, a weak economy gets even weaker, there is a good case for the dollar to slip even further (amazing thats even possible), on and on. Its a terrible idea. But I understand you are talking more about the idea of using it, not actually doing it. I think threatening something you cant follow through on, even if your opponent has no read on if you can/will, is extremely foolish.

Second, Im positive Smith wasn't the one who brought this topic up. I'm pretty certain Ford, Singh and I believe Joly publicly placed energy on the table with regards to these negotiations (whenever they start). Its irresponsible for whoever let the cat out of the bag, prior to an understanding being had between all parties, as that cat cant be put back in. Smith obviously opposes it, and thinks its something we should not even consider doing. Im pretty sure the quote was something like, and I'm obviously paraphrasing

Reporter: "Have you heard the comments from (I believe it was Joly) concerning her position that Canada should consider an Energy embargo should Trump actually follow through with tariffs on the 20th (not just export tax, a ####ing energy embargo)."

Smith: Again I'm paraphrasing "We wont stand for that, and you should never threaten something you can not possibly do. If they do decide to go down that path, they will have a national unity crisis on their hands."

I agree with you, negotiations should never go this way, but not for the reasons you state. Its an absolute #### sammich. To make claims publicly about things that haven't even been discussed between the stakeholders is absolutely ridiculous. I agree, confirming its not something thats in the cards, isn't a good scenario at all. But given the comments referenced (85% sure it was Joly) in the interview with Smith, and public comments from Ford earlier than that, and the Singh "Turn off the taps" speech. I think it wasn't really avoidable from Smiths perspective. Whats she to do when asked about a ####ing energy embargo? Come on.

Smith was not "throwing Canada under the bus", she was correcting overzealous idiots that couldn't hold their tongues looking for personal political benefit.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Makes sense coming from a government that aims to make the average person and family suffer by increasing the cost of living in any way possible.

You’ll have to explain what you mean. They are targeting very specific things initially for direct effect on specific states with minimum impact on Canada. What do you think they should do instead?

[Andy83]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I saw speculation of a tiered approach. Tier one being bourbon, peanut butter, stuff like that as you suggest. I forget what the second tier was but tier three was oil, gas, uranium, potash, various minerals, aluminum and included critical items from the majority of provinces.

Its the only retaliatory path forward that makes any sense to me if tariffs do hit tomorrow.

That being said,
I think this all disappears tomorrow if we committed to meet our 2% GDP budget for defense pledge sooner than 2032. But thats kind of reading between the lines a bit.

Edit: and i will add, by the time you get to level 3, 2% GDP is probably a bargain.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Our system of government is exposed to an outsized risk if an incompetent leader is elected. No checks and balances or regional representation.

Guess we have a senate. But it’s comprised of patronage appointment hacks. So more of a rubber stamp for the dictator of the day.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Goriders

Guess we have a senate. But it’s comprised of patronage appointment hacks. So more of a rubber stamp for the dictator of the day.

Noe of our institutions are functioning in the service of democracy. The Senate is just a waste of taxpayer dollars as a gift for the elite classes. Trudeau attacked the judiciary with his attack on Jodi WR. Trudeau attacked the charter (which is a poorly written document to start), with his "emergency response" to the truckers. The governor general should have called an election the moment trudeau asked to prorogue. Trudeau got his wish - Canada is a post-nation nation.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by edslunch

You’ll have to explain what you mean. They are targeting very specific things initially for direct effect on specific states with minimum impact on Canada. What do you think they should do instead?

You'll have to do some explaining, if the initial retaliatory tariffs have minimum impact on Canada that would mean the impact is minimal to the US. So message does that send exactly and why even bother with such retaliatory tariffs? If Canada is pissed about the US imposing 25% tariffs it is basically rolling over if our government imposes tariffs with minimum impact.