Zeitgeist

The US is NOT our closest ally. The UK is. We share the same Queen and political system and don’t you forget it. Trump is seriously fucking up the international order and reducing America’s importance, destroying relationships with allies that value liberal democracy, cozying up to dictators, empowering Russia, and creating an opening for China to become the lead superpower. How stupid is Trump? Maybe you should forget your revolution and return to mother Britain to take care of you, because you’re governing like spoiled babies.

Actually I have to disagree. America, the Soviets and the Brits had been heavily involved in Afghanistan, taking control of trade in the colonial period and later manipulating affairs during the Cold War, including America’s support of the Mujahideen, a forerunner to Al Qaeda, sadly.

Do I really have to cite the multiple US court challenges to the NAFTA dispute resolutions and WTO decisions in Canada’s favour on softwood, aerospace, agriculture, and other matters? No one with a modicum of education on such matters is fooled. The US took advantage of Canada before, tying us up in costly court battles or simply ignoring the decisions of the rules based system. Trump is seeking much greater advantage now. We’re not buying what your selling, so take your snake oil elsewhere. On one matter we agree: Canada has depended too much on our trade relationship with the US. It had largely made sense to do so because of proximity, economic similarity, rule of law, and because we believed we could trust Americans. That trust has taken a major and perhaps irreparable hit. I don’t suggest you fuck up the relationship any further, but that’s your government’s choice, not ours.

That’s all bullshit. America benefits as much as or more than Canada from its current trade flow with Canada. Trump has put that valuable trade relationship at grave risk through his imposition of tariffs and his bellicose and overblown critique of our trade relationship. Canada will NOT accept a trade deal that is more imbalanced in the US’s favour and we will work around an irresponsible US foreign policy that hurts workers and families. Smarten up and stop spouting dangerous disinformation. We all see Trump’s divide and conquer, might is right approach to trade and we won’t accept those terms, ever. Better instead to reroute trade away from the US, however hurtful and unnecessary, than to accept an even more damaging bad trade deal. Hopefully there really are “adults in the room” in these negotiations on the US side who act in good faith to broker a fair deal. Otherwise find other suckers to exploit.

Any Canadians who have lived for a while appreciate greatly hearing a Canadian voice in the media. My favourite stations are the CBC, TVO and America’s HBO because I value thoughtful programming. America doesn’t need cultural protection because of the massive scale of its media domination. When many Americans look at Canadians they see themselves and another northern state, but Canadians see themselves as different and value their differences, much as we value and respect much about America. I suggest that Americans try to learn more about Canada because it is different, interesting, and valuable. Whether you care about it or not, Canadians care about it. Supply management has always been about providing stability for farmers. It works better than subsidies. Ultra low dairy prices hurt dairy farmers. Subsidies encourage over production which falsely lowers dairy prices. We value our agriculture sector in Canada, in Quebec as much as in any other province. Maybe the US should try supply management. In any event, it’s a system that has worked well domestically in Canada irrespective of international trade. As for your IP theft claims, they are exaggerations. Stop being the pot that calls the kettle black. The US has massive subsidies and has raised tariffs. Some protections for vulnerable sectors may remain necessary in a trade agreement, but don’t pretend that the US doesn’t have them. A trade agreement must be in Canada’s interest or it’s not worth having. Trade is balanced between our countries and a fair deal that serves both countries is possible. We have one called NAFTA. At least it has worked quite well between Canada and the U.S. If anything, the U.S. has had an advantage and the dispute resolution process in NAFTA wasn’t strong enough.

Sorry dude but I don’t believe you.

Agreed. Mexico obviously negotiated from a position of fear. Behind Canada's back, in what is supposed to be a tripartite deal, Mexico and the U.S. agreed to a six year sunset clause and the reckless abandonment of the Chapter 19 dispute resolution. There must be no, or very little reduction of Canadian dairy subsidies unless they are matched by a reduction in U.S. subsidies. Supply management has been an effective mechanism in Canada for protecting farmers' livelihoods that American farmers would probably be wise to adopt. In any event, supply management is a domestic matter not to be decided by a trade agreement. On cultural protections there can be no compromise, except perhaps on the broadcasting of U.S. commercials during the Super Bowl. Canadians may like American Super Bowl adds, but broadcasters and producers of media content have the right to make money from advertising to pay for programming. Chapter 19 must be retained to ensure fairness in trade disputes, period. If Canada's negotiators cannot strike a fair deal that works for Canadians with the Trump team, then Canada will have to terminate negotiations and state the reasons for walking away publicly. Trump would be hard-pressed to get NAFTA through Congress without Canada. Quite simply, it cannot be NAFTA without Canada. It would be a bilateral deal with Mexico. The scrapping of NAFTA would take a minimum of six months (by law), at which point the mid-terms would be over. At that point it's a new ball game. The worst case scenario is that NAFTA is scrapped and we revert to old trade rules, protected by the WTO. Until a more fair and reasonable regime is in place in the U.S., we would live with this situation. Not ideal but better than the alternative. If Trump doubles down and lays on 25 percent auto tariffs, they will be countered by Canada with equal tariffs on U.S. auto imports. At that point Trump would have a new mess on his hands, and not a made in Canada mess. In the meantime, Canada will seek new markets with knowledge of the U.S.'s unfair approach to trade. Apart from all of this trade business, Trump is facing serious challenges, legal and political, on a range of matters. If he continues to behave belligerently and erratically, his authority will be further weakened. The worst part about Trump's belligerence for America, on trade as in other matters, is the continued loss of credibility internationally.

Well nationally it’s hard to say. Toronto is often cited as the most diverse major city, with more than half its population foreign born. I like the gumbo metaphor though. It’s a cool image for America.

Canada is probably a more diverse society than the U.S. We’re not a melting pot. That brings different challenges, but I don’t relish the conflict in the U.S., which is a less peaceful society.

That’s one of the reasons I know you’re not Canadian. Visit Newfoundland or a gailic village in Cape Breton, maybe take in a kitchen party. Spend time in Quebec or the far north. I hope it’s not just foreigners that want to curb Trump. Hopefully there’s enough opposition in America, perhaps even within his own party.

The important thing is that you're thinking about the rest of the world as well as America's long term interests, because they're very similar. Suggestion to the Neo-Cons who support the notion that somehow the U.S. can act on self-interest at the expense of others: Consider how badly Truman f'd up America's place in the world and escalated the Cold War to a point where people lived in constant fear of being nuked. This is the old Truman vs. Wallace dichotomy all over again. Wallace sought world peace and for the world to enjoy similar prosperity to the U.S.. He built bridges and upheld human rights. Truman stoked fear. Truman's posture led to Soviet expansionism and the massive military spending that Eisenhower would extend and later regret. Right now the U.S. is acting like post-Treaty of Versailles Germany, disgruntled and hard done by, even though its economy has done well. The U.S. has within it the capacity to provide a high standard of living and upward mobility to the masses and to be a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Instead, it is acting penurious, fearful, and vindictive, for no good reason. The long term costs for this approach may be much higher than many Americans realize. I hope that Trump will essentially cease to be taken seriously by mainstream America and the vast majority of the voting public. Some find his antics amusing or tough, but make no mistake, they are destructive. We'll all be paying for the clean up, Americans more than anyone else. Just hope it's not past the point of no return.

I don’t understand your argument. Are you suggesting that past failures justify future ones? We also have to recognize that when we know better, generally, we do better. There’s no context for your criticism. It’s easy to cast aspersions on the policies of the past using the moral yardsticks of the present. The important question is, What are we doing TODAY to be just?

With comments like that it’s clear that America needs Canada like never before. It’s getting very close to being too late to address serious, possibly extinction level climate change, but there are also shorter term domestic concerns such as gun violence and public safety. You have to raise up your disenfranchised, set policy that expands your middle class, and push the society towards sustainable lifestyles. This is beyond US Canada relations, though trade policy should be progressive for both countries. I realize some want to move backwards, clingy to institutionalized racism/sexism and irresponsible growth that enhances the interests of the rich at the expense of the masses. That’s not what the US, Canada or the world should be about.

OPINION Canada still has a strong hand in NAFTA negotiations EDDIE GOLDENBERG CONTRIBUTED TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL PUBLISHED 7 HOURS AGOUPDATED SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 Eddie Goldenberg is a senior partner at Bennett Jones, LLP and from 1993-2003 was senior policy adviser and then chief of staff to prime minister Jean Chrétien. Many Canadian commentators argue the “deal” on NAFTA between Mexico and the United States has thrown Canada under the bus; that the “divide and conquer” strategy of the U.S. combined with threats by Donald Trump to impose huge tariffs on Canadian automobile exports or to abrogate NAFTA entirely has left little choice for Canada but to capitulate to unpalatable U.S. demands. This is wrong. By entering into a bilateral deal with Mexico, the United States has unwittingly strengthened the hand of the Canadian negotiators. Despite Mr. Trump’s bluster, U.S. negotiators and their Mexican counterparts must realize that the U.S.-Mexico “deal” on its own is a total nonstarter in Congress without Canada. Mr. Trump can tweet and demand that Congress “not interfere with these negotiations.” Whether he likes it or not or whether he understands it or not, he does not have absolute power. On matters of trade, Congress has extensive authority. On the North American free-trade agreement, the President only has authority by law to put a trilateral deal, not a bilateral deal, to Congress with few procedural constraints. A bilateral deal with Mexico would be subject to all the procedural obstacles that would in practice make it a complete nonstarter for years to come. STORY CONTINUES BELOW ADVERTISEMENT The President has another insurmountable problem. While he can threaten in a tweet to withdraw from NAFTA, doing so is far easier said than done. While NAFTA was negotiated at the executive level, it was implemented in the United States by a vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The best legal opinions are that it can only be revoked by a similar vote in the Congress, and not by the unilateral action of the President. The Canadian government has been extremely successful in its lobbying effort in the United States to convince American legislators of the benefits of NAFTA to the U.S. Therefore, a threat to withdraw from the trade agreement is once again a mere bluff by Mr. Trump because he will simply not get the required Congressional support to do so. The President has resorted to another threat. If Canada doesn’t capitulate and sign a deal on U.S. terms, then he will impose a 25-per-cent tariff on exports of Canadian automobiles to the United States. This threat has caused some consternation in Canada because of the importance of the auto sector to our economy. However, the North American automobile industry is so integrated that many parts of each individual car come from all three countries. Imposing a huge tariff on cars coming from Canada might devastate the Canadian industry, but it would also devastate the U.S. automotive industry and would impose huge costs on American consumers. The resistance from U.S. business and consumer interests would be so great that it would likely make Mr. Trump’s tariff threats once again empty. What does this all mean for Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland as she goes back to the negotiating table? She knows that it is in the political interest of Mr. Trump to be able to claim some victory somewhere in the world on trade before the midterm elections. He won’t have it in the near future with China and is unlikely to have one with Europe before November. He could have one with Canada and Mexico if he is prepared to compromise but not if he is completely intransigent. If the NAFTA negotiations fall apart, it will represent a political setback for the President and if they succeed, it gives him an important victory in the run up to the November elections. Because the U.S. deal with Mexico is a nonstarter without Canada, and because Mr. Trump’s threats to abrogate NAFTA or to impose huge tariffs on the Canadian automotive sector are mere bluster by a bully, Ms. Freeland goes into the next round of negotiations with a very strong hand. She has not been backed into a corner. If anyone is in a corner, it is U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who now has no choice but to negotiate in good faith on issues of importance to Canada; otherwise the U.S.-Mexico deal falls apart and Mr. Trump’s claims of victory disintegrate. Ms. Freeland need not feel rushed. She can and should take all the time necessary to negotiate what is in Canada’s interests and not succumb to artificial U.S. timetables. The Canadian pundits are wrong. Ms. Freeland and Canada enter the next round of negotiations in a strong bargaining position.

We have been forced to respond to Trump’s dangerous behaviour. Canada and the US have had a good trade relationship. Trump’s invective against Canada is a straw man and a red herring. There’s no substance to the criticism. If anything our trade relationship was imbalanced in the US’s favour, but we always understood that US power and self-absorbtion made a certain amount of imbalance inevitable. What we are seeing now is the worst kind of Mercantile imperialism. Trump’s now public trade policy is to divide partners against each other and use power to seek unfair advantage. Canada cannot avert its eyes to the injustice. We will appeal to Americans’ own democratic institutions, rule of law, and goodwill, as well as the WTO and international law. Trump is poisoning international relations. The Canadian government will protect its interests and walk away from unfair trade proposals.

Trudeau is absolutely right. If you think we’re trading our rich culture for McCulture, you can take off, eh! Sounds like your farmers want our supply management. If only America was run by Ottawa. Americans would be so much happier.

Taxme is not Canadian. Stop the fake posts. Visits were up to the US in your data BEFORE Trump’s tariffs. I’ve heard first hand from many Canadians who are now avoiding travel to the US. I’m doing it too. Unfair trade treatment will NOT be accepted. If the US wants 50 percent US auto content for cars imported from Canada, then we want 50 percent Canadian content for cars imported into Canada from the US, and so it goes, messing up the entire supply chain. Nice going... As for our tax system, we use it to set CANADA’s priorities, which include having a strong and large middle class.

Not true. Canadians are traveling to other places. We will protect our farmers and high quality produce, one of many factors that make Canada the best place to live.

Not crossing the border to buy as many goods, no. Canada will be part of fair trade negotiations. Otherwise Trump can fall on the sword of Congress and the State governments.

We're recouping the costs through tolls. Michigan was unable to finance it. With regard to that last video clip, the message is clear: Canada must walk away from NAFTA negotiations immediately. Let Trump try to cancel NAFTA. Maybe he'll get it through Congress before or even after the mid-terms. Maybe. Something tells me the legislation gets pulled apart, and piece by piece reassembled with some changes by committees that know something about trade. Trump can threaten WW3 on trade and even cancel NAFTA and we'd be back to the WTO and most favoured country status. The tariffs under that regime are fairly nominal. With regard to TPP, he is right to say that we should be seeking the same labour standards as our reps have called for in NAFTA. However China isn't part of TPP, so the countries with low labour standards are much smaller. They will have to revisit labour standards in time. Canada will need to lean on free trade with other countries, now that the U.S. has gone protectionist. The U.S. is going to see a rise in consumer costs and take a hit on its exports as the counter-tariffs from China, Europe, Canada et al have their impact. Yes, Canada is impacted by U.S. tariffs and Canada's economy will undergo a major readjustment of trade, but the result won't be good for the U.S.

Just hope that Gaia doesn't completely turn on humanity in your lifetime, so that you can live to regret that statement.

Why doesn't that idea seem far-fetched anymore?

Corrupt from the beginning.

Your last lines reveal the whole stupid position. No one wins a trade war. Every tariff is met with a counter tariff. Workers, consumers and families are negatively impacted in equal numbers on both sides of the border. Don’t underestimate Canadian pride and fortitude. We’ll ride this out like many bigger challenges in the past.

Ha ha, you're trying to have honest dialogue on this? Okay, we could get into aerospace and at least 10 other industries, but let's just start with U.S. farm subsidies (below). Take special note of ARC, America's answer to Supply Management: 1. Insurance. The largest farm subsidy program is crop insurance run by the USDA's Risk Management Agency. Spending on the program has averaged more than $8 billion a year over the past five years, up from around $3 billion in the early 2000s.8 The program subsidizes both the insurance premiums of farmers and the administrative costs of the 16 private insurance companies that offer the policies. Over the past five years, spending has averaged $6.7 billion a year in premium subsidies, $1.5 billion for insurance company subsidies, $0.3 billion for underwriting losses, and $0.2 billion for federal administrative costs.9 Subsidized insurance is available for more than 100 crops, but corn, cotton, soybeans, and wheat are the main ones. About 80 percent of current policies in force protect against revenue shortfalls, while the other 20 percent protect against yield shortfalls.10 The insurance companies receive direct subsidies for administration, but they also earn inflated profits from the high premiums they charge. The Government Accountability Office has found that crop insurance firms earn high rates of return.11 Agricultural economist Bruce Babcock has found that commissions made by crop insurance agents have increased substantially over the years.12 As for farmers, the USDA pays 62 percent of their premiums, on average.13 Most farmers actually make money on this so-called insurance, receiving more in claims than they pay in premiums. The Congressional Budget Office found that farmers have received $65 billion more in claims than they have paid in premiums since 2000.14 As Babcock noted, this program is not "insurance" at all, but a lottery that is a sure bet.15 Congress has expanded crop insurance to become the largest farm program for a reason. For other farm programs, the identities of the wealthy subsidy recipients are public information, which can be politically embarrassing for farm program supporters. But with insurance subsidies, Congress essentially launders the cash through the insurance firms, which hides the identities of the recipients. Also, unlike other farm programs, there are no income limits on insurance, so millionaires and billionaires receive subsidies. There are about 20 farm businesses that receive more than $1 million a year from the program.16 2. Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC). This program pays subsidies to farmers if their revenue per acre, or alternately their county's revenue per acre, falls below a benchmark or guaranteed level. Generally, the lower the prices and revenues, the larger the subsidies. The program covers more than 20 crops, from wheat and corn to chickpeas and mustard seed. ARC subsidies fluctuate, but they were $3.7 billion in 2017.17 3. Price Loss Coverage (PLC). This program pays subsidies to farmers on the basis of the national average price of a crop compared to the crop's reference price set by Congress. The larger the fall in a crop's national price below its reference price, the larger the payout to farmers. Since reference prices are set high, payouts are likely. The program covers more than 20 crops, and payments were $3.2 billion in 2017.18 Farmers choose to participate in either ARC or PLC. At the same time, they can enroll in crop insurance, which has the same general function of keeping farm incomes high. So farmers can double dip from at least two subsidy programs should their crop revenues come up short.19 4. Conservation Programs. The USDA runs numerous farm conservation programs, which cost taxpayers more than $5 billion a year. Some of the programs pay farmers to improve lands that are in production, such as the Conservation Stewardship Program. Other programs pay farmers to take land out of production, such as the Conservation Reserve Program. Like other farm programs, these subsidies are tilted upward, providing the great bulk of benefits to the largest farms.20 Rather than handing out taxpayer cash to farmers, a better way to conserve marginal lands would be to repeal farm subsidies, which encourage excessive cultivation. 5. Marketing Loans. This is a price-guarantee program that began during the New Deal. The original idea was to give farmers a loan at harvest time so that they could hold their crops to sell at a higher price later. But today the program is just another unneeded subsidy that boosts farm incomes. The cost of this program dropped to near zero in 2017, but it was about $160 million in each of the previous two years.21 6. Disaster Aid. The government operates disaster aid programs for various types of farmers, from wheat growers, to livestock producers, to orchard operators. In addition to disaster programs already in law, Congress often distributes more aid after adverse events. Disaster aid amounts fluctuate, but such aid has averaged $1.9 billion a year since 2010.22 7. Marketing and Export Promotion. The Agricultural Marketing Service spends $1.2 billion a year on farm and food promotion activities. The Foreign Agricultural Service spends about $300 million a year on marketing activities for U.S. farm and food products, including operating more than 90 foreign offices. 8. Research and Other Support. Most American industries fund their own research and development, but the government employs thousands of scientists and other experts to aid the agriculture industry. The USDA spends about $3 billion a year on agriculture and food research at more than 100 locations. The department also provides an array of other support services to farmers, such as statistical data and economic studies.