Connect with us

Business

Sobering reality check – Trump is right: Canada’s economy can’t survive a fair trade agreement with the US

Published

11 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

Canada’s economy has evolved to completely depend upon the good graces of the USA. If President Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged.

The current Canadian prime minister is genuinely a walking meme of a Canadian prime minister parody.

During his remarks to Parliament last Thursday, Prime Minister Carney waxed gleefully about the U.S. federal trade court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs, just moments before the federal appeals court stayed the opinion of the lower court. It’s a little funny.

Carney doesn’t seem to recognize the reality of the economic landscape before him. He complains about blocked access to the U.S. consumer base with a level of entitlement that’s genuinely humorous. Meanwhile, the Canadian economy around him is collapsing:

Background

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump were to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist. In essence, in addition to the NATO defense shortfall, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent North American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together its own military and defenses and meeting its NATO obligations, then Canada should become the 51st U.S state.

It was following this meeting that Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process. However, in the emotional reaction to Trump’s statements, no-one looked at the core issues outlined by Trudeau that framed Trump’s opinion.

Representing Canada, Trudeau was not expressing an unwillingness to comply with fairness and reciprocity in trade with the U.S., what Trudeau was expressing was an inability to comply.

Quite simply, after decades of shifting priorities, Canada no longer has the internal economic capability to comply with a fair-trade agreement (FTA). Trudeau was not lying, and Trump understood the argument, hence his 51st state remarks.

Firstly, Canada is a NATO partner, Mexico is not. As Trump affirmed to Trudeau during the meeting, it would be unfair of Trump to discuss NATO funding with the European Union, while Canada is one of the worst offenders. Trump is leveraging favorable trade terms and tariff relief with the EU member states, as a carrot to get them into compliance with the 2.0 percent to 2.5 percent spending requirement for their military.

If NATO member states contribute more to their own defense, the U.S. can pull back spending and save Americans money. However, Canada is currently 26th in NATO funding, spending only 1.37 percent of its GDP on defense.

Canada would have to spend at least another $15 billion/yr on its defense programs in order to reach 2.0 percent. Trudeau told Trump that was an impossible goal given the nature of the Canadian political system, and the current size of its economy ($2.25 trillion).

Secondly, over the last 40 years Canada has deindustrialized its economy, Mexico has not. As the progressive political ideology of its politicians took control of Canada policy, the “climate change” agenda and “green” economy became the focus. The dirty industrialized systems were not compliant with the goals of the Canadian policy makers.

The dirty mining sector (coal, coking coal, ore) no longer exists at scale to support self-sufficient manufacturing. The dirty oil refineries do not exist to refine the crude oil they extract. Large industrial heavy industry no longer exists at a scale needed to be self-sufficient.

Instead, Canada purchases forged and rolled steel component parts from overseas (mostly China). Making the issue more challenging, Canada doesn’t even have enough people skilled to do the dirty jobs within the heavy manufacturing; they would need a national apprenticeship program. Again, all points raised by Trudeau to explain why bilateral trade compliance was impossible.

Thirdly, the trade between Canada/U.S. and Mexico/U.S. is entirely different. The main imports from Canada are energy, lumber, and raw materials. The main imports from Mexico are agriculture, cars, and finished industrial goods. Mexico refines its own oil; Canada ships its oil to the U.S. for refining. There are obviously some similar products from Mexico and Canada, but for the most part there is a big difference.

Fourth, U.S. banks are allowed to operate in Mexico, but U.S. banks are not allowed to operate in Canada. U.S. media organizations are allowed to broadcast in Mexico, but U.S. media organizations are regulated and not permitted to broadcast in Canada. The Canadian government has strong regulations and restrictions on information and intellectual property.

All of these points of difference highlight why a trilateral trade agreement like NAFTA and the USMCA just don’t work out for the U.S.

Additionally, if President Trump levies a tariff on Chinese imports, it hits Canada much harder than Mexico because Canada has deindustrialized and now imports from China to assemble into finished goods destined to the U.S. In a very direct way Canada is a passthrough for Chinese products. Canada is now more of an assembly economy, not a dirty job manufacturing economy.

When Trudeau outlines the inability of Canada to agree to trade terms, simply because his country no longer has the capability of adhering to those trade terms, a frustrated President Trump says, “then become a state.”

There is no option to remain taking advantage of the U.S. on this level, and things are only getting worse. Thus, the point of irreconcilable conflict is identified.

Because the Canadian government became so dependent on its role as an assembly economy, they enmeshed with China in a way that made them dependent. The political issues of Chinese influence within Canada are a direct result of this dynamic. In fact, China was the big winner from the outcome of the recent election because all of their investments into Canada are grounded on retaining Liberal government dependency.

If Trump targets China with punitive tariffs, the Canadian economy will be collaterally damaged. Canada will end up paying a tariff rate because they use cheap Chinese component parts in their finished goods. Canada has structurally designed its economy to do this over multiple years.

Understanding the unique nature of the Canadian economic conundrum, the only way to address the issue is to break out the USMCA into two separate bilateral trade agreements. One set of trade terms for Mexico that leverages border security, and one set of trade terms for Canada that leverages NATO security and border security. The only substantive similarity between them will be in the auto and agriculture sector.

If you think the multinational corporations, political leftists, and UniParty Republicans in the U.S. are strongly opposing Trump now, just wait until later this year when the Trump administration proposes the elimination of the trilateral North American trade agreement, USMCA.

According to the World Bank, the U.S. economy is $27.3 trillion. Canada is $2.1 trillion. Do the math!

From Politico:

The expectation, according to two people close to the White House, is that negotiations to permanently remove the threat of painful 25 percent tariffs on Canada – which Trump mostly rolled back earlier [in April] – and other sector-specific tariffs are likely to be folded into the upcoming review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That review is due in 2026, but the Trump administration wants to accelerate to this calendar year.

“It makes sense to separate out Canada and Mexico from the rest because they are going to want to redo the USMCA,” said one of the people close to the White House, who were granted anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. “They’re going to have separate tariffs that focus specifically on Mexico and Canada, and they’re going to take some actions to squeeze them a little bit.”

Reprinted with permission from Conservative Treehouse.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Automotive

Canada’s EV house of cards is close to collapsing

Published on

CAE Logo By Dan McTeague

Well, Canada’s electric vehicle policies are playing out exactly as I predicted. Which is to say, they’re a disaster.

Back in November, in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s re-election, I wrote in these pages that, whatever else that election might mean for Canada, it would prove big trouble for the Justin Trudeau/Doug Ford EV scam.

The substance of their plot works like so: first, the federal and provincial governments threw mountains of taxpayer dollars in subsidies at automakers so that they’d come to Canada to manufacture EVs. Then Ottawa mandated that Canadians must buy those EVs — exclusively — by the year 2035. That way Ford and Trudeau could pat themselves on the back for “creating jobs,” while EV manufacturers could help themselves to the contents of our wallets twice over.

But the one variable they didn’t account for was a return of Donald Trump to the White House.

Trump had run on a promise to save America from their own back-door EV mandates. Though Kamala Harris had denied that any such mandates existed, they did, and they were founded on two acts of the Biden-Harris administration.

First, they issued an Executive Order setting significantly more onerous tailpipe regulations on all internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, with the explicit goal of ensuring that 50 percent of all new vehicles sold in America be electric by 2030.

Second, they granted California a waiver to make those regulations more burdensome still, so that only EVs could realistically be in compliance with them. Since no automaker would want to be locked out of the market of the most populous state, nor could they afford to build one set of cars for California (plus the handful of states which have — idiotically — chosen to align their regulations with California’s) and another set for the rest of the country, they would be forced to increase their manufacture and sale of EVs and decrease their output of ICE vehicles.

Trump’s victory took Canada’s political class completely by surprise, and it threw a spanner into the workings of the Liberals’ plan.

That’s because there just aren’t enough Canadians, or Canadian tax dollars, to make their EV scheme even kinda’ work. Canada’s unique access to the world’s biggest market — America — was a key component of the plan.

After all, vehicles are “the second largest Canadian export by value, at $51 billion in 2023, of which 93 percent was exported to the US,” according to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association, and “Auto is Ontario’s top export at 28.9 percent of all exports (2023.)”

It further depended on Americans buying more and more EVs every year. But since, when given a choice, most people prefer the cost and convenience of ICE vehicles, this would only work if Americans were pushed into buying EVs, even if in a more roundabout way than they’re being forced on Canadians.

Which is why the plan all began to unravel on January 20, the day of Trump’s inauguration, when he signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which, among other things, rescinded Joe Biden’s pro-EV tailpipe regulations. And it has continued downhill from there.

Just last week, the US Senate voted to repeal the Biden EPA’s waiver for California. Not that that’s the end of the story — in the aftermath of the vote, California governor Gavin Newsom vowed “to fight this unconstitutional attack on California in court.” (Though don’t be surprised if that fight is brief and half-hearted — Newsom has been trying to leave his lifelong leftism behind recently and rebrand as a moderate Democrat in time for his own run at the White House in 2028. Consequently, being saved from his own EV policy might only help his career prospects going forward.)

But it’s worth noting the language used by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents car companies like Toyota, GM, Volkswagen and Stellantis (several of whom, it should be noted, have received significant subsidies from the Liberal and Ford governments to manufacture EVs), which said in a statement, “The fact is these EV sales mandates were never achievable.”

That’s worth repeating: these EV sales mandates were never achievable!
That’s true in California, and it’s true in Canada as well.

And yet, our political class has refused to accept this reality. Doug Ford actually doubled down on his commitment to heavily subsidizing the EV industry in his recent campaign, saying “I want to make it clear… a re-elected PC government will honour our commitment to invest in the sector,” no matter what Donald Trump does.

Except, as noted above, Donald Trump represents the customers Doug Ford needs!

Meanwhile, our environmentalist-in-chief, Mark Carney, has maintained the Liberal Party’s commitment to the EV mandates, arguing that EVs are essential for his vacuous plan of transforming Canada into a “clean energy superpower.” How exactly? That’s never said.

These are the words of con artists, not men who we should be trusting with the financial wellbeing of our country. Unfortunately, in our recent federal election — and the one in Ontario — this issue was barely discussed, beyond an 11th-hour attempted buzzer-beater from Pierre Poilievre and a feeble talking point from Bonnie Crombie about her concern “that the premier has put all our eggs in the EV basket.”

Meanwhile, 2035 is just around the corner.

So we can’t stop calling attention to this issue. In fact, we’re going to shout about our mindless EV subsidies and mandates from the rooftops until our fellow Canadians wake up to the predicament we’re in. It took some time, but we made them notice the carbon tax (even if the policy change we got from Carbon Tax Carney wasn’t any better.) And we can do it with electric vehicles, too.

Because we don’t have the money, either as a nation or as individuals, to prop this thing up forever.

Dan McTeague is President of Canadians for Affordable Energy.

Continue Reading

Business

Ottawa must listen to the West

Published on

If Prime Minister Mark Carney doesn’t listen to the West, it’s going to cost Canada.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe are demanding that Ottawa stop stomping on their provinces’ natural resource production.

Smith is telling Carney to scrap the no more pipelines law, Bill C-69, lift the cap on Alberta’s energy and cancel the looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles.

Moe is stepping in sync with Smith, listing Saskatchewan’s demands in a letter, calling for changes to the no more pipelines law, saying, “there are a few policies that are going to have to go.”

Moe is also taking aim at the industrial carbon tax saying “the tax can’t be charged on the electricity for Saskatchewan families.”

The new prime minister says he’s listening.

“I intend to govern for all Canadians,” said Carney in his election victory speech.

If that’s true, Carney must heed the demands of Smith and Moe, because Ottawa’s anti-West policies are damaging the economy and costing taxpayers a truckload of money.

How much?

Ottawa’s cap on oil and gas emissions – which creates a cap on production – will cost the Canadian economy about $20.5 billion and slash 40,000 jobs by 2032, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Canada has also seen nearly $670 billion in natural resources projects suspended or cancelled, since 2015.

To put that kind of money into perspective: $670 billion would pay for the salaries of hundreds of thousands of paramedics and police officers, for a decade.

That’s the equivalent to the value of more than one million houses in Alberta or almost two million homes in Saskatchewan.

That kind of money is worth the entire income tax bills for the populations of AlbertaSaskatchewan and Manitoba for about 10 years.

That’s just the lost money from natural resources.

Carney’s looming ban on the sale of new gasoline and diesel vehicles also has a huge price tag.

Canada’s vehicle transition could cost up to $300 billion by 2040 to expand the electrical grid, according to a report for Natural Resources Canada.

If Carney is serious about boosting the economy and governing for all Canadians, getting the government out of the way of natural resource projects and scrapping the expensive plan to stop people from buying new gas and diesel vehicles is a good first step.

The West has been firmly asking for Ottawa to mind its own business for years.

Cancelling the industrial carbon tax is another way for Carney to show that he’s serious about growing the economy and governing for all Canadians.

On the same day Carney scrapped the consumer carbon tax, the Saskatchewan government dropped its industrial carbon tax down to zero.

“By eliminating industrial carbon costs which are often passed directly on to consumers – the province is acting to protect affordability and economic competitiveness,” said the Saskatchewan government’s news release.

Alberta’s industrial carbon tax is now frozen. Increasing the tax above its current rate would make Alberta “exceptionally uncompetitive,” according to Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz.

Business groups in both provinces lauded each premier, saying it would make their industries more competitive and help bring down costs.

When Ottawa forces businesses like fuel refineries or fertilizer plants to pay the carbon tax, they pass on those costs on to taxpayers when they heat their homes, fill up their cars and buy groceries.

If companies are forced to cut production or leave the country because of the industrial carbon tax and policies like the energy cap, it’s regular Albertans and Saskatchewanians who are hurt the most through job losses.

If Carney intends to govern for all Canadians he needs to listen to Smith and Moe and scrap these policies that are set to cost taxpayers billions and slash tens of thousands of jobs.

Kris Sims is Alberta Director and Gage Haubrich is Prairie Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Continue Reading

Trending

X
OSZAR »