More or less.
But also with the result of making it very clear to Canadians that the US can’t be fully trusted, which can and likely will have lasting economic and geopolitical impacts for everybody involved. That’s an actual cost just to seemingly end up where we started. It’s actually a step backward for the US.
I said this during the felon’s first term - the US has shown itself to be an unreliable partner in so many facets of diplomacy and international relations. We could elect a modern Mr. Rogers in 2028, but the world will know that 2032 could bring them an American Bolsonaro, and their party will rubber-stamp their craziest ideas.
It will take decades and decades to rebuild our standing internationally, even if we turn the ship of state around right TF now. And the ship of state steers like an overloaded Panamax tanker, so it will take a lot longer than that.
“Front line personnel” means border guards, RCMP, etc. already doing this job.
Police officers are not “Troops.” They are civilians.
To semi-quote the Democrats argument multiple times in elections “Yeah, but look at the other guy.” Don’t get me wrong. I agree that American reputation and standing has been diminished under Trump and has arguably headed down for most of this century. I’m sorry that other first world democracies seem to be stuck between an unreliable America and adversaries in Russia and China.
It’s probable that this was part of the combined federal-provincial strategy. Having gotten a concession from the Americans, pissing off the de facto Vice President personally would have been a move I have zero doubt the feds begged Ford not to do. Or that it was planned all along.
This has been a really solid team effort by Canada so far and I suspect most of these decisions are orchestrated by mutual agreed upon strategy.
Thing is, Starlink is a freaking godsend to remote locations. Even not-so-remote places. There’s tons of rural Saskatchewan where legacy internet service providers have shite for service. Sasktel & Shaw (now Rogers) basically don’t serve internet outside of “urban” (for values of urban that include relatively small towns) centres, so unless you can make do with mobile data your options are Xplorenet, with legendarily crappy connectivity and worse customer service, and Starlink. Unless OneWeb or the like gets a viable service off the ground (pun intended), Starlink is pretty much the only reasonable game in town.
Tossing that contract was going to hurt Ontarians in remote communities.
That’s exactly true.
Retaliatory measures are often needed, but there’s not anything to retaliate against yet and it always has to be borne in mind that they hurt Canadians. They sometimes have to be done for demonstrative effect and to convince the other party to back down, but the cost must always be considered.
Pulling American booze off the shelf is a smart retaliation. It does have a little bit of a negative effect on Americans, but its effect on Canadians is tiny. Sorry if you really like Jack Daniels but there’s other whiskey if you’re a drunk who needs booze that badly. The harm to us is immeasurably small. I like some California wines but c’mon, wine is wine. You can still buy wine from Italy, France, Germany, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, Australia, South Africa, Chile, and of course Canada. And maybe other places. There’s a hundred wineries within an hour’s drive of my house. The real cost to Canada is vanishingly tiny.
Cancelling a Starlink deal has a very considerable negative effect on a lot of people in Canada. That has to be a factor in these decisions. It’s easy for a city boy like me to say “yeahhhh tear it up” but people in northern communities get fucked if we do.
We can only play the cards that are in our hand. We can talk tough, but an all-out trade war will hurt us a lot more than the US, and should be avoided if at all possible. If making a few cosmetic concessions will avert dire consequences it would be foolish in the extreme to refuse.
The only other alternative is massively escalating the stakes, such as by putting a huge export tax on energy, in hopes that business & political interests in the US can force Trump to back down, but those guys have a crap track record of standing up to Trump themselves and we’re ill-advised to adopt a strategy relying on US business leaders suddenly growing a backbone. So, somebody in CBSA can get a fancy new title, Trump can crow about his victory on Fox & Friends, and we buy some time to make preparations for the next round.
I am also unhappy with any appeasement, or appearance thereof, but it’s hard to know how much of what was promised was new, and how much of what was promised will actuslly be done— Trump is not a follow-up or details guy.
I’m sure Canada will get that in place in about “two weeks.”
Let’s all bear in mind what actually happened.
The absolute fact is that TRUMP backed down. He promised to re-raise. Canada (Mexico too) called his bluff, and he backed down from his promise to re-raise.
I don’t care what the droolers watching Fox think. Canada refused to bend over and the tariffs are delayed for no real concession. That’s fact, the Canadian government knows it, and the American government knows it. Precisely what happened behind the scenes in Washington we do not know - they were probably already getting screamed at by business just for raising their own tariffs - but our strategy is holding the tide back so far.
It also has to be the case that less idiotic people in the Musk admin were studying the Canadian reaction. I would imagine they figured there was some percentage chance Canada would in fact divide over this, that the public would be divided between those who wanted to fold and those who didn’t, that the on-its-last-legs Trudeau government would either fold or be forced by provinces to fold. Instead the other possibility, which their smarter people doubtless assigned a probability to, happened; Canadians were overwhelmingly furious, wanted the government to fight back, and were determined/resigned to recession and having to build other trade relationships. Threatening our independence, freedom, and way of life will do that. I have no doubt Trump had advisors telling him “look, we’ll do way better here if you stop saying this 51st state stuff” but he’s stupid and becoming senile.
I will laugh so hard if this whole situation results in Polievre losing the upcoming election due to being seen as more likely to roll over for Trump. Which isn’t impossible.
If this at least holds him to a minority government, I’ll breathe a sigh of relief. But I suspect our goose is still cooked.
He is still a huge favourite, but it’s not certain. He is much likelier to win if Chrystia Freeland is his opponent.
Canada did get a boost from the WSJ calling this the “dumbest trade war in American history”. If this kerfuffle leads to lower interprovincial barriers, smarter military funding, less financial crime, a more secure border if America pursues immigration concerns, more serious focus on economic independence and resource use … there are some small consolations. They’ll be needed; thirty days is not much time.
I definitely see your point, but I’m of two minds about this. Even if Canada spent ten times what we currently do on the military, it would make absolutely no difference to what the US chooses to spend on theirs. The US doesn’t incrementally spend anything more on their military explicitly to protect Canada; even the joint NORAD mission that’s been going on since the Cold War is entirely for their own security. Trump uniquely has a bug up his ass about Canadian military spending because he’s an ignorant troublemaking blowhard who feels that Canada should be suffering the same economic costs of supporting the military as the US does, even if it makes no difference whatsoever to US costs. The main reason the US military is so big and costly is that the US has chosen to be a hegemonistic global power, which also made it a lot of enemies and hence an exceptional need for national defense.
The one argument for a stronger Canadian military is that the Orange Blowhard has shown that the US can’t be trusted, either for national defense or as a reliable trading partner, and we need to strive for greater self-sufficiency. The tradeoff is that spending more on the military means we’re spending less on health care and social programs or else being as irresponsible as the US is with a runaway national debt.
Police officers aren’t soldiers, but they’re not exactly civilians, either. I think most police officers would object to being called “civilians”, because in their lexicon a civilian is any ordinary citizen who isn’t a police officer or a soldier in the military, who incidentally they traditionally regard as brethren. This view is supported by the military-like ranks in police departments and the special legal status of police officers, making police forces a kind of quasi-military organization. But sure, border guards and RCMP officers at border crossings or in airports aren’t soldiers.
I believe the term is paramilitary.
This is true and a point I’ve made many times, including on this board to its more oafish members. It’s also true that this has nothing to do with trade deals and abandoning a free trade deal with Canada makes Canada LESS capable to increase defence spending.
But there is a moral imperative to contribute to our own defense on not be a free rider, and when crises do come up, we’ve been caught short again and again. And now a BIG crisis has come up and I sure wish we were a lot more prepared.
That’s a serious problem we have with cops these days. Robert Peel’s wisdom has been forgotten.
It may be true that the marginal cost of America helping to defend Canada is low. That does not really excuse the current state of neglect said to be in the Canadian military. We should have reasonable quantities of working machines, the ability to help defend our Arctic border, the wherewithal to meaningfully contribute to international efforts, less politics, and attractive enough benefits to recruit the needed numbers.
True though this is, and true that we would never be able to win a war by ourselves, we should at least be able to exact a/some cost, and our government has only paid lip service to defence.
Our submarine acquisition process was a disgrace (including an onboard fire that killed a young officer); the EH-101 was a disgrace, replete with spectacular cancellation penalties); and our then-commander RCN, Mark Norman (who I know and with whom I’ve served) was in danger of being jailed for providing a missing operational requirement, in order to possibly satisfy some BS political issue.
And, perversely, we’ve always used terms like “a can-do military” (which is a just a lame way of trying to save face for our operational equipment shortfalls) and “fitted for but not with” which somehow tries to compensate for the fact that we’re too fucking cheap to properly arm and equip our various platforms.
But hey! That’s all good because we’re Canada and we “punch above our weight” (as we sent our troops to a desert environment in woodland camouflage, or to an active and violent combat zone in what were essentially VW “Things”).
So, again, though I loathe that thing south of the border, may holding our feet to the fire may inadvertently cause something positive.