Machjo

Let's not confuse nationalist politics with sound economics. Ontario has a massively populous market right on its southern border. In terms of transportation costs, etc., it makes more sense for Ontario to trade withNew York State than it does with British Columbia. In the same way, it makes more sense for BC to trade more with Washington State than with Ontario, given the comparative cost of transporation of goods. Tariffs distort that.

Actually, I don't think it has tariffs against other provinces, but it does have trade barriers of other kinds none the less. It should unilaterally drop those.

On that note, I do think Ontario should unilaterally drop tariffs against other provinces.

And so that would be the advantage of provincial jurisdiction in international trade. You tariff us, and we'll just drop tariffs against the world and trade with it instead.

Look at Hong Kong. Tariffs increase the cost of living which thus forces our wages up so we can survive. Free trade would reduce the cost of living which would thus make us more willing to work for lower wages while still maintaining the same standard of living. It's the tariffs themselves that are forcing our wages up.

Who said anything about a trade war? I'm talking about unilateral global free trade.

That's what happened to Harley Davidson. Trump raised tariffs on products that Harley Davidson depended on, so Harley started to relocate out of the US.

Simple. As more factories move to the US, the USD would rise relative to the CAD. It wouldn't take long before Canadians couldn't afford US products and Americans start willingly paying the tariffs for better-priced Canadian goods. The US would soon paint itself into a corner in its dependence on tariffs.

Let me propose a radical solution to that. What if Ontario and Quebec and other provinces got together to propose a simple constitutional amendment to transfer international economic policy to the provinces. This would mean that provinces that want protectionism could have it while those that want free trade could have that. Each province could adopt its own foreign trade policy. This would include its own packaging and labeling, phytosanitary, banking, and other standards too. Of course this would mean that a province could raise tariffs against other provinces too, but so be it. It would do so to its own economic peril and the other provinces would have no obligation to reciprocate the foolishness.

And even if one side chooses to remain foolish, that doesn't force the other side to act equally foolishly. If the US wants to maintain tariffs against Canada, so be it. Canada should just adopt unilateral free trade in tariffs and quotas and make the guarantee of its right to maintain that policy a condition of any trade agreement with any state. No trade agreement that Canada signs with one state should ever force Canada to raise tariffs or quotas against any state.

And the worst part is that Canadian tariffs hurt Canadians more than they do anyone else. If the US raises tariffs against Canada, Canada can always just sell to someone else. If Canada raises tariffs against foreign imports, Canadian consumers are trapped.

A simple question. Trump's tariffs against Canada actually caused Harley Davidson to move some of its operations abroad and we can reasonably presume that they hurt other US industries that depended on imported materials too. Given that, why would Canada want to copy Trump's example?

I actually agree that we shouldn't ratify the USMCA. Instead, we should show the US the proverbial finger and adopt a policy of unilateral global free trade in tariffs and quotas, and then return to the US to offer to negotiate a more comprehensive free-trade agreement beyond tariffs and quotas (like packaging and labeling, phytosanitary regulations, banking, etc.) if it wants to, but on the condition that any agreement must guarantee Canada's freedom to maintain unilateral global free trade. Should the US refuse to negotiate on that basis, then no-deal it is, and Canada satisfies itself with unilateral free trade in tariffs and quotas with the US. If the US wants to raise tariffs against its own consumers (which has already hurt Harley Davidson, talk about backfiring, and that had nothing to do with Canada's tariffs against the US but rather with the US' own foolish tariffs against its own manufacturers who depended on materials imports), then that's its foolish prerogative. Just because Trump decides to shot US manufacturing in the foot with his tariffs, we don't have to follow suit and shoot ours in the foot with our own. Let Trump do what he'll do, and we'll do what we'll do.

Are you saying that Canada's been shooting itself in the foot for years now already? I agree.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...iffs-1.5004736 Let me get this straight. The US raised tariffs against Canada and so essentially shot itself in the foot in the process. Well, we can't have that, so Canada retaliated by raising retaliatory tariffs and so essentially shot itself in the foot in retaliation.Ontario and Quebec are now asking Ottawa to stop shooting Canada in the foot and Ottawa says it refuses to do that until the US stops shooting itself in the foot first since to do so would equal surrendering to the US. Did I miss anything here?To be honest, even if Canada unilaterally dropped its tariffs against the US and the US didn't reciprocate, so what? Just because Trump is foolish enough to hurt US consumers doesn't mean Canada needs to act equally foolish so as to hurt Canadian consumers too. Let Trump do his thing, but Canada should focus on wise economic policy, not economic emotionalism.

I doubt Beijing would tolerate that since it wants to save face by having Canada formally release her.

I would support a free-trade agreement between Canada, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan on the condition that they all respect the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Beijing might be angry at this, but to not destroy Hong Kong's and Macao's economy with the rest of China's, it would probably begrugingly allow them to trade freely with Canada while trying to have Hong Kong resell mainland gooods. Fine, by all means. This would just make preserving human rights in Hong Kong more important than ever for China's own good. It might even motivate China to grant more human rights to residents of Shanghai too so that Shanghai could join such an agreement too. After all, Hong Kong's ports could handle only so much daily traffic.

Canada needs to build closer ties to Taiwan. They can provide qualified Mandarin teachers too but without the partisanship.

All good points. It doesn't matter the sex of the aggressor or the victim: sexual assault is usually extremely difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt. Even a rape kit test might prove nothing more than that sexual intercourse occurred, not whether either participant was willing or not. If the victim knows there's now hard proof of uwilling participation, that's a strong incentive to just let it go. It doesn't make the experience any less traumatic though.

The Chinese are among the most employed in Canada.

Even as a man, I've tried to abstain from consuming alcohol and meeting strange women alone and especially in private and I'd advise any man to do the same. Does any man among you feel triggered by my recommendation?

Was that feminist member of the matriarchy lusting after Trudeau, objectifying him, thinking of him just as a sex object? Oh the toxic feminism!

You've never dealt with the CBSA, have you? I have and among the ones I'd dealt with, at least a few were functionally illiterate in their language of work. It wouldn't surprise me if there are a few more like that embedded among their ranks.

I absolutely agree. Like I said, I don't condone that Chinese candidate's comment and she should retract it. I'm just saying that that Anglos (and Francos too by the way) are not immune from it either. But I digress. Back to the OP: she should formally withdraw her comment or face the consequences. I as a voter would certainly reconsider voting for her for that comment.

I lean conservative myself and I certainly reject any Candidate that appeals to his or her Chinese or any other ethnicity, but I include Anglo ethnocentricism in that too.