Zeitgeist

You’re missing the fact that some of these auto plants have Canadian roots. This nonsense about Canadians taking American jobs represents a complete misunderstanding of how integrated our economies are and have always been. Canada is a major parts supplier to the auto sector. Canada was a major producer of aircraft and ships in the world wars. It continues to produce passenger aircraft. Canada was the third country to launch a satellite into space. Canada is still a major producer of small aircraft, now with European ownership. Aerospace tech is still a major strength. Companies like McDonnell Douglas and Bombardier have contributed hugely to rail and air infrastructure. The smart phone was invented in Canada by Blackberry. Do your homework. Repeating the same lies over and over won’t make them true. You seem to be taking a page out of Trump the propagandist’s book.

That’s just untrue. The U.S. is doing very well by the Canadian market. This new protectionism towards Canada is unfair and selfish. The world knows it. The U.S, emperor is wearing no clothes. Why can’t his own party inform him of the fact?

And yet the U.S. exports more to Canada than Canada exports to the U.S., giving the U.S. a rare trade surplus among its trading partners. Good deal for Americans.

Because it makes sense to trade with neighbors. It’s in both of our interests to take advantage of proximity, but it works best when neighbors are neighbourly. Canada is left with no choice but to supplement trade with other partners given this new U.S. protectionism.

Very true. The U.S. does violate its own trade agreements regularly. They’re not fair traders. They’ve eroded trust by ignoring the rulings of the WTO and NAFTA tribunals. With regard to supply management, that was never targeted to international trade, but was rather a means of preventing the kinds of massive price fluctuations that would sink small farmers. It’s a stabilizing force in an often volatile sector, farming. Losing the farm is a well known expression for a reason, because it used to happen all the time due to crop failures or oversupply.

In a small country without the benefits of economy of scale and a large domestic market, the government has an important role to play in nation building. The national railroad and communications systems were important infrastructure that no one company could build. Exports also became essential for growth, which is why the Canadian government opted to lower export taxes and raise consumption taxes. What’s more, reducing consumption leaves citizens with more financial room for investment. Money that would’ve gone to another luxury item is instead directed towards investment in companies and future growth, important in a country trying to boost business investment and productivity. Okay, if what you’re secretly hoping for is to destroy the Canadian economy through a trade war, that truly is the definition of a race to the bottom, as the U.S. would kill the markets for its potential exports. So much for the dream of a U.S. trade surplus, which it already has with Canada. Why take that risk? There is no good reason for a trade war with Canada. It’s irresponsible. Also, our banking regulations protected Canada from having the kind of subprime mortgage catastrophe that the U.S. had. Oh, and you’re not going to build national unity by alienating Quebec. If companies can’t handle making French language labels, maybe they can’t handle exporting.

I agree that Canada is responsible for Canada. I hope America is responsible for America.

You brought up productivity, but productivity is a messy concept to quantify, because while it's mostly a good thing, it can also mean bad things. A sweat shop may be highly productive. It's like measuring a country's progress strictly through GDP. Cleaning up environmental catastrophes boosts a country's GDP, yet people aren't wishing for more oil spills like the Exon Valdez. The most important metric overall is progress. We can argue about what exactly constitutes progress, but if we don't agree on some fundamental benefits -- safe, humane work environments; clean air and water; good wages; health; longevity, equal opportunity, etc. -- then it's very difficult to talk about the benefits of certain trade policies or any other economic policies. With regard to the Maritimes, yes, some Canadian regions receive more supports than others. There is regional disparity in Canada for a host of reasons. We try to level the playing field with transfer payments and other redistributions, not always very well. The U.S. has its neglected "other side of the tracks" in many cities and some regions. I like the safety of Canadian cities. How much is living in a palace an indicator of success if you risk getting shot going to buy milk at the corner store?

Yes, because Canada relies too heavily on the sale of its raw materials. We do produce high value finished products across sectors, but we can do better. On the other hand, while high productivity does create more wealth, it can lead to other problems, such as high suicide rates (Japan). Lifestyle matters. If we are more productive through working smarter (better machinery and automation, for example), we probably benefit. If we're simply squeezing people to do more with less and burning them out, that's counterproductive. When I look at U.S. maternity leaves, average number of paid holidays, health care costs, etc., discerning productivity and its value isn't that simple. In France people work fewer hours and have far more holidays and benefits than Americans, yet they are extremely productive. Interesting.

I agree that there are political challenges for Canada inside its borders for building pipelines across jurisdictions, but those can be resolved and the oil isn't going anywhere until it's extracted. We have time and oil is a limited resource. The Canadian government has enough capital to nationalize large swaths of the oil sands, natural gas, and the refining of oil (too much of which is done in the U.S.), but it has lacked the political will because of previous battles with Alberta when the National Energy Program was set up. The Canadian government, don't forget, bought BP in Canada and started Petro Canada, which it later sold off. It isn't too late and I'd love to see the revenue from oil production go directly to all Canadians. We have been giving away our natural resources to foreign energy companies for far too long. It would be easier for Canadians to weigh the economic value of energy production against environmental costs if the benefits of energy production accrued to Canadians.

I agree that it's hard to maintain high wages and compete with lower cost jurisdictions for manufacturing. Wynne's answer to the loss of manufacturing has been to go after high value add jobs in the tech and green energy sectors. The results have been mixed, but the mindset is right. She has also tried to make traditionally lower paying service jobs pay higher wages. That's the idea behind the $15.00 an hour minimum wage. Again, this policy will have winners and losers. I'm going to put forward another premise that I think is closer to reality about the new economy: Work as we traditionally understand it is probably going to disappear or diminish over time. By that I mean that most of the manufacturing will be even more automated, so there will be fewer of these good middle class jobs, yet as we have learned from quantitative easing in the U.S. after the 2008 recession, countries can more or less stimulate their way out of recessions by printing money. It's a shell game that so far has worked. The surpluses in production of food, homes, clothing and so forth are so massive that we can feed the world and have homes and vehicles without having a lot of people doing production. That's why countries are seriously considering guaranteed basic income. The challenge in the future may be keeping people occupied and productive even though there isn't much required of them. Protecting the environment in the face of all this excess production is also a challenge.

U.S. investors have benefitted greatly in terms of purchasing power from a lower Canadian dollar. The lower dollar has made our goods cheaper for consumers in other countries. It used to help our exports. Not anymore, as Canada has a large trade deficit despite having a low Canadian dollar right now. With regard to the large amount of American investment, Canada does attract a lot of foreign investment. China has taken a great interest in recent years, especially in sectors like oil and gas. My guess is that the U.S. would rather see American investment in the oil sands than Chinese. I'm sure the Canadian government has felt the same way. Given the U.S.'s recent moves on trade, I'm not sure that Canadian sentiment will remain. As I said before, countries are watching the U.S.'s moves closely right now and setting policy accordingly. One more thing: You said that Canada wants equal access to the world's largest economy, but do you appreciate that in exchange the U.S. has as much access to Canadian natural resources as Canadians have under NAFTA? I'm not sure that's a good deal for Canada. If Trump wants to put America first, maybe we should put Canada first and protect our resources. Norway nationalized its oil and has benefitted greatly. The royalties from oil have given that country's citizens tremendous wealth. Maybe that's the best move for Canada. Perhaps the government's acquisition of the Trans Mountain Pipeline is a good first step in this process. Canada has the third largest oil reserves in the world.

It's absurd to ask how many auto/truck assembly plants Canada or any other country has built in the USA. Countries, at least capitalist ones, don't build assembly plants. Companies do based on demand. Because of these tariffs, American auto makers will have to pay a 25% duty on the cars they manufacture overseas and import. Meanwhile, Japanese companies that produce their cars in the U.S. will avoid these tariffs. Companies build plants in countries to meet local demand. If you want to prevent American companies from sending manufacturing to low-cost jurisdictions, set up international labour standards that require countries to pay workers comparable wages to those paid in the U.S.. A better question to ask is, how many cars do Canadians buy and where are these cars made? Canada has lost car plants in recent years in cities like Oshawa and Windsor. The cars they produced were Canadian and American made. Did you know that a branch of GM was originally Canadian? Research McLaughlin. That company essentially became Buick. U.S. auto production and Canadian auto production grew up together and it's incredible how much ignorance there is out there on the topic.

I agree that we've adopted many good U.S. policies. We're lagging the U.S. on some environmental protections, more progressive than the U.S. in some other areas. As you know, it varies greatly also by state/province. With regard to "trails far behind on total immigrants, pipelines, and environmental regulation," you must not look at numbers without context. The U.S. has almost 10 times Canada's population. Does it have more than 10 times the immigrants, pipelines, etc.? This is why comparisons between the two countries break down. It's apples vs. oranges. The U.S. has the advantage of economy of scale that Canada is just beginning to experience. As the population grows, Canada will become more self-sufficient. It's incredible that such a vast land with such a small population has the infrastructure and institutions that it has. The economy is also surprisingly diverse. Really, it's the part of North America most poised for growth in the long term, and I'm sure the U.S. will want in on the investment.

Well, Canada is a country in the process of serious expansion. Not only does it have tremendous natural resources and a highly skilled, well-educated workforce, it is welcoming to immigrants, tolerant, and on the right side of history in terms of progressive policy. Of course there are setbacks and controversies. Pipelines are a sticking point with environmentalists and there are social ills that need to be addressed. I'm more interested in seeing what new trade relationships and possibilities lie within Canada's own borders than in past achievements. It's an exciting time for the country, which is still quite young.

I can tell you're really impressed by this "big dog" idea. I'm not, except where it leads to improved human development inside and outside of the U.S. Power is not a virtue. It's how power is exercised that matters. Over time, people and money follow the wise use of power, which is why the U.S. is in for a decline if it doesn't perform better on the world stage.

Trump is free to drop NAFTA. Canada is free to disagree with Trump's terms for its replacement.

"Moral values" are a great cover story for raw military and economic power. I would agree that this is the cynical position of the current president. Might is right. He's using U.S. power to bully other countries, but that's a losing game in the long run. Even China has figured this out, which is why they're building infrastructure projects in Africa, forging trade agreements, and are starting to be taken seriously as an alternative moral authority. That may seem absurd right now given China's human rights record, but that country is changing. Trump doesn't even pretend that the U.S. has superior moral authority. That's why he overlooks Putin's corrupt behavior. Let's not forget that only one country has dropped nuclear bombs on another country.

That sounds quite reasonable. The problem with a sunset clause, especially every five years, is that it makes it very hard for companies and countries to do any long-term planning and investment. Trade agreements are costly, messy, and hard to implement. I would forget the idea of a sunset clause and instead have a process for addressing imbalances where and when they occur. However, it has to be understood that it will never be a perfect balance. On the whole it should be close, but there will be certain sectors with surpluses and some with deficits based on supply and demand. Americans need cheap softwood and Canadians supply it. Canadians need citrus and Americans grow it. As for industries like steel and aluminum, those industries are so bilateral that it's not even worth separating the U.S. from the Canadian content.

"It was Canada's war as loyal part of the imperialist British Empire. WW1 and WW2 were not started by the U.S., but the U.S. sure as hell finished them. Britain was broke, its empire would continue to decline, so Canada had to find another economic sugar daddy...USA." You're saying the U.S. won the wars because of its power, not moral purpose. Britain was broke because it made massive sacrifices to fight a just war that the U.S. joined after it was attacked. Britain was the first country to declare war on Germany. That's a badge of honour in my books. With regard to Canada's position in Bosnia against Serbia and its actions in Haiti, the reasons for such involvement were moral and not only self-interested. Yes, Canada has acted outside of the UN like the U.S. has and reserves that right. The U.S. is locked into a massive military supply chain that it cannot break. Military overspending in the U.S. is a problem. As with the second amendment, the American people don't seem to see a way out of it. I guess it's worth asking the question: If NATO is policing the world, whose messes is it cleaning up? It's arguable that the U.S.'s allies have spent a hell of a lot of money supporting U.S. causes and cleaning up the fallout of U.S. policies. I don't even question this anymore. I think of the massive security fees Canadians spend on air travel, which were essentially a salve to the U.S. after 911. We accept this as a reasonable price to pay in our relationship. If Trump is counting costs and coming to a different tally on matters such as trade surpluses, maybe Canada needs to take a closer look at all of the costs.

So what do you suggest? I don't think that the conditions you're describing are the result so much of policy as of geography; or rather, our proximity to the U.S. and the reality of its influence drives our policy. To decouple that would be unnatural and bad for business on both sides of the border, obviously. My main point is that raising borders and tariffs will hurt both countries. Yes, Canada will feel a greater impact, at least initially, but because of its open trade policies with other countries, it will be better positioned to make the necessary adjustments in trade. We could buy our citrus and other sunbelt items from South America or Europe. Tech and other items can be had elsewhere. It will still be a challenge to find sufficient markets for some of our goods outside the U.S., but it would probably also lead to a grassroots "Buy Canadian" movement. I'm not fundamentally worried in the long-term, but this trade war is stupid, unnecessary, and will hurt all countries involved. Trying to parse out the Canadian and U.S. content of our auto industry and other cross-border manufacturing will be an absurdly onerous task for both countries. I could see a Canadian company like Magna decide to manufacture cars. It has the capacity. There's a Stalinesque central planning quality about this retooling. It reminds me of Mao's Great Leap Forward, which was a massive leap backwards. I don't think Trump realizes that Canada will never accept an unfair trade agreement. We won't lay down like that. There are other countries that trade.

Freeloader? Canada participated fully in all of World War One, mostly without the U.S. The U.S. joined WW2 after Pearl Harbor. Canada was there from the start after Britain declared war on Germany. Canada supported the U.S. in Afganistan after 911. Canada punched above its weight in both world wars, but the stats speak for themselves. Don't ever question that. You only have to visit the Senate Chamber at the Parliament Buildings or the monument at Vimy Ridge to appreciate the contributions of Canada to its allies. There were also achievements in peace-keeping, which Canada pioneered. Prime Minister Pearson received the Nobel Peace Prize for this work. You're buying into Trump's rhetoric with this "freeloader" nonsense. The U.S. people have been victims to its military industrial complex for decades, contributing far more to it than was justified. I mean, how many times over do you need to be able to destroy the world? The U.S. has made its military too high a priority for far too long. Another problem is that the U.S. has meddled in so many countries, from installing Saddam Hussein as Iraqi leader to supporting the Shah in Iran to trading arms for hostages to getting involved in the opium trade to fund the Vietnam war to so much other bad behavior that has essentially come home to roost for all of the western democracies. When Trump said that Obama created ISIS, he was referring to the fact that the former state apparatus of Iraq was essentially thrown under the bus when the U.S. did not respect the results of the democratic elections in Iraq and supported the Shia minority leader who had lost instead. We all suffer for such actions because organizations like ISIS target the U.S. AND ITS ALLIES. We have all paid a price for U.S. actions in the past, and yes, we have benefitted from our relationship with the U.S., but quit trying to make it seem as though Canada is somehow on the winning end. It's been very hard for Canada to maintain its own public policies over the years because of U.S. dominance. Back to your original point: Look at Canada's contributions to NATO and the UN over the years. They are substantial and some of them are not military in nature, such as training police in Afghanistan. What's more, the U.S. has made a few rogue decisions without the support of the UN or all members of NATO, in its various coalitions of the willing. Some of those decisions really backfired, such as the invasion of Iraq. Anyway, these are complex and widely varying issues. The point is, when there was a clear moral purpose, Canada has usually made contributions. And yes, Canada has made many mistakes, from its treatment of indigenous peoples in residential schools to its treatment of Chinese railroad workers to its treatment of Jewish immigrants during WW2. We have problems just like the U.S. does. The U.S. is not going broke. We all have to work together to maintain peace internationally. By alienating its allies and everyone else, the U.S. will have a harder time getting buy-in from the international community on a range of issues. It's about winning hearts and minds, not breeding contempt.

Well, the U.S. exports more than 50% of its steel exports to Canada. The U.S. exports more to Canada than any other nation. It has a trade surplus with Canada. I agree that we lean to heavily on one export market, the U.S. We have also relied too heavily on our natural resources, which are a strength for Canada. I agree that Canada needs to diversify its exports. It's a challenge for a small country (population-wise) to be strong in all sectors, yet it has done remarkably well for its size in the tech, aerospace, and biomedical fields. The big advantage that the U.S. has had is that, because of its military might and economic influence, it can manipulate the world economy in its favour. It shapes it. The fact that commodities are priced in U.S. dollars is a huge hedge against inflation. The risk for the U.S. going forward is that if its moral authority on the world stage sinks further through more retrograde policies on issues such as trade, immigration, and climate change, the international community will simply tune out the U.S., and perhaps not only politically. It can happen culturally. Again, this isn't about Americans. The U.S. is a big, dynamic country. Hopefully Trump is a passing anomaly. Not sure though.

I was not a Trudeau supporter, but to criticize Trudeau for his public treatment of Trump is just wrong. Trudeau very early on emphasized that he could work with Trump and even said that "Trump listens" when international press galleries laughed at Trump's self-aggrandizing fascistic behavior and frowned upon his jingoistic immigration policies. Trump leaned on Trudeau's reputation, citing him twice in his State of the Union Address. While I have as much respect for the American people as I do for Canadians or any other people, I don't know why Trudeau provided this cover for Trump, who is now revealing just how much he values friends and allies. I think Trudeau should take a harder stance against this president. As powerful as the U.S. is, collectively other world leaders have a much bigger voice. The U.S. economy is growing at a high rate. Unemployment is low. That isn't enough to quench the greed of this president who seems hell bent on threatening the livelihoods of millions worldwide. It's just plain irresponsible and needs to be called out as such.

China fell into decline after the Great Wall was built because it limited the flow of goods and services into China. The U.S. will suffer most from this self-imposed trade war because other countries will simply work around it, trading with each other without the barriers of duties or tariffs. While I see short-term pain for Canada's exports, this U.S. action will lead to less Canadian trade with the U.S. and more trade with BRIC nations, the rest of South America, and Europe. It's better in the long run for Canada to reduce its dependence on the U.S. Thankfully Canada signed off on CETA. Europe will be even more willing to stoke this free trade relationship after Trump's imposition of tariffs. Great Britain has sought to boost trade and alliances within the Commonwealth since Brexit. Now is the time. The upsides of globalization, that the economies of low-cost developing countries would rise and eventually become markets for western goods, is slowly bearing fruit. Whose products will they buy? They won't buy more from belligerent countries that have imposed tariffs, because there will be counter-tariffs. This U.S. aggression on trade damages the U.S.'s international reputation and lowers its moral authority. The middle and small powers of the world are watching and deciding whose lead to follow. Unless Trump's approach changes, it won't be the U.S..