Posted on 03/11/2025 2:23:25 PM PDT by Peter ODonnell
As a member of a Canadian political party, I have written today to various Canadian politicians to suggest the following template for a solution to the current trade war that is escalating between Canada and the United States.
I think this template would lead to an amicable solution and reduce the unpleasant tension now existing, which is deterring ordinary people from making travel plans or considering business deals. This is not a situation that is helping either country in its present form, and my suggestion would place it in a more optimistic framework.
First suggestion is that there would be a 90-day pause to allow Canada to have a federal election in April or May and this would give Canadians a chance to empower a new government with policies they wanted to see pursued in any talks with the American government.
Second suggestion is that we rule out any notions of political union (annexation of Canada). This is not desired by any more than a small percentage of Canadians and frankly, it would not play into any recognizable long-term goals of the current U.S. administration, as Canada would no doubt be an additional source of votes for their opponents, the Democrats. I could note in passing that many Canadians are finding it rude for a foreign leader to casually imply that we should join the United States, as one new state when our land area is actually greater than that of the U.S.A. in total. There is almost zero support for the idea among Canadians; some western Canadians are upset with the Ottawa government but most of them favor independence, not political annexation.
A third suggestion is that we consider a renewed economic union based on the lowest set of tariffs, if not a total elimination of all of them, similar to the European Union, but without the political apparatus of the EU.
And finally, a fourth suggestion is that comprehensive talks between our leaders (once Canada decides on its new government) would go deeply into issues of border security, drug trafficking, and the influence of foreign countries, notably China but also any other third parties.
I would favor having parallel talks between U.S., Canada and Mexico at a later date; any economic union between United States and Canada would likely not be feasible to extend seamlessly to Mexico, so there it would be necessary to renegotiate the three-country trade agreements in place. Border issues between the U.S. and Mexico are clearly on a different scale and that part of the process would no doubt be advancing regularly while this U.S.-Canada process went forward.
I think it's fair to say Canadians don't want a trade war and many Canadians are not that well-informed on specific tariff issues that are irritants. The dairy sector seems to be a particular flash point. It is ridiculous in the extreme to toss out a long history of friendship and mutual co-operation between two sovereign nations over the price of eggs or milk. A full renegotiation of U.S.-Canada trade will allow all these issues to be fully debated and in my opinion the negotiations should take place in public so that the populations of our two countries can see what their representatives are saying to each other on these important matters. There should be nothing to hide, even on matters like Chinese interference -- this is already an issue in both countries, let the people see what's going on and what our leaders propose to do about it.
Personally I would like to see complete free trade between the two countries, no tariffs, and reduced barriers to trade. Canada has internal issues to solve in this regard, it will no doubt be an election issue to resolve long-standing interprovincial trade concerns.
The 90-day pause should not be viewed as problematic on either side. We need to get some clarity in Canada about what our policies will be and who will be in charge. Americans would be similarly upset and displeased if a foreign power leaned heavily on the U.S.A. in the October of an election year and through the interval between election day and inauguration day especially if the voters had chosen a different party to lead. This is potentially the situation in Canada now.
So, my saying all this means nothing, but if one of the Canadian political parties picks up on these ideas, it may give some added weight and lead President Trump towards considering a 90-day pause, so long as Canada follows through with an early election call (we don't legally have to call an election before the late summer into autumn, or as a result of non-confidence vote in the House of Commons, but newly installed PM-designate Carney will be wise to follow tradition and call an election as soon as feasible to allow voters to confirm or deny his party's choice -- this was done in 1984 when John Turner was similarly elected leader after Pierre Trudeau resigned).
I hope my suggestion of adult supervision will not come as a shock to the system. I believe there can be a great economic partnership between the two nations but only after a fair discussion and the mutual respect that a fair discussion requires.
Not a bad starting point but given Alberta has entertained the possibility specifically on becoming a state I think it is a bit strong to state no one in Canada wants to be a state.
An even simpler solution would be for Canuckistan to show that they are taking measures to reduce the flow of fentanyl into this country.
“Americans would be similarly upset and displeased if a foreign power leaned heavily on the U.S.A.”
Perhaps Canada should cooperate and drop their high tarriffs.
The Canucks are simply being unfailingly polite.
Greenland and Canada have both set out why they’re not big fans of the idea - they don’t have school shootings, their society isn’t deeply polarised, they don’t get bankrupted by extortionate private healthcare, they don’t mind paying taxes, and they don’t mind paying import tariffs.
Alberta is looking at the offer from the US and saying, very politely, it is worth a discussion. In much the same way that my Dad said he was “open to a talk about it” when six-year-old me said I wanted an ant farm with army ants in it.
I didn’t get one.
I suggest you also include an immediate 50% increase in Canadian defense spending, to the level Canada committed to upon joining NATO.
Or they can pay the U.S. a tribute on all goods exported that amounts to 50% of the current defense shortfall. That won’t begin to cover the tens of billions of spending on freeloading socialist crap Canada has flushed down the toilet, but it would be a pretty good place to start.
I was born in Canada, and am outraged at how pussified it has become.
“The 90-day pause should not be viewed as problematic on either side. “
How many terrorists would come across during that 90 days?
What about Canadian tariffs on American imports? That’s also an issue.
How about zero tariffs.
Canadians buy ir stuff if they want and us theirs if we want.
Otherwise we’ll cut off your Kraft Dinner supply. Take That! LOL
He hasn’t stated it outright, but I think Trump sees Canada as not a fully sovereign nation - it is under the control of EU (particularly London) WEF-style globalist/socialists, ie) globohomo.
Given the destruction Trudeau has caused, and his anointed successor is pure Davos-man, Mark Carney, one could argue that Canada has been “globohomo” testing ground for large-scale multi-culti leftist social engineering. This can not be left on our Northern border, or in Greenland. Many of Canada’s policies, from climate change to Ukraine simply ape policy stated by Brussels/London.
I wonder if Trump’s issues with Canada go beyond merely fentanyl traffic and duties on dairy products....
> A third suggestion is that we consider a renewed economic union based on the lowest set of tariffs, if not a total elimination of all of them, similar to the European Union, but without the political apparatus of the EU. <
Dangerous business. Because the EU started as a simple trade union, too. But it is the nature of any bureaucracy to grow, and gather more power to itself.
And so we have the EU of today.
This why, I think, Trump is focused on tariffs. The money is immediate. It doesn’t matter what is in the warehouses or the pipeline, you have to have the cash to move the product.
Canada has a trade surplus with the U.S. and enjoys higher tariffs. Canada’s government is addicted to this money as if it was USAID. They can’t give it up any more than Hunter can his crack pipe.
I disagree with the overall premise of your opinion, I am in agreement though that Statehood is just not going to happen. Alberta I think is semi-serious though as there is a lot of animosity between them and Ontario and their government currently.
I understand the idea is unpopular, as for everything else they have been wildly naïve and blissfully so. They have lived under the default protection of the US and it is time for them to stand on their own economically and militarily.
No more unbalanced trade, either no tariffs across the board or reciprocal tariffs, they need to own it and find another way to run their country as opposed to on the back of the American consumer.
I can hear Trump laughing at this now.
This guy has no vision. He should have proposed going back to the “norm” and waiting until the next US election.
;)
“I wonder if Trump’s issues with Canada go beyond merely fentanyl traffic and duties on dairy products..”
Terrorists.
Fairness
Canada would have to put tariffs on imports (for example from china) equivalent to US tariffs, otherwise Canada will continue to be a country whose principal industry is the final assembly of Chinese imports to skirt US tariffs.
Drop all tariffs and Canadians clean their own house. We’re cleaning up ours so feel free to take the initiative. I think the whole 51st bs was to awaken an internal Canadian nationalist movement.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.