Canadian politics thread

[Traum]

I'm not sure if others have heard this 1/2 joke before or not, but I vividly remember that when I was a FOB kid that had just immigrated to Canada, more than a few of the old uncles have 1/2-jokingly told us that if a thief were to break into your house here in Canada, it is better to beat him dead than to just beat him up and have the police arrest him. And these old uncle's rationale was exactly what is happening now in the Ontario case -- if the burglar only got a beating, he is gonna come back and sue the home owner. But if he is dead, then dead man can't talk, and there is only your side of the story.

I could never figure out whether these old uncles were just BS-ing us FOBs, or whether they really meant it.

[68style]

Boohoo the country is so shit it's going to fucking hell everywhere you turn... so I went for a hike through Grassi Lakes today, imagine my incredulous face after reading this thread that it's super beautiful, the trails are well maintained by Canada Parks staff with well marked maps and lots of information about conservation efforts at various spots and sparkling clean washrooms. Young, old, babies in strollers, all ethnicities including IMMIGRANTS oh my god there were quite a few of those too! And dogs? Who allowed those?

Not even one Jihadist and I didn't even see any transgender people skulking in the washroom like X told me there would be!!! The fuck is happening? Must be because PeePee got his seat back?

Off to Rae Glacier for a 4 hour hike on Sunday, hopefully more of these X nightmare prophecies are fulfilled THERE! Grassi was a disappointment to my world ending views.

Keep basementing your life away whackjobs!

[VRYALT3R3D]

Originally Posted by Traum

I love it when you only choose to selectively look at things.

It is estimated that up to 90% of goods exported from Canada can be CUSMA compliant. In the past, only ~40% of the goods exported to the US are covered by CUSMA, but that has increased to over 50% since the tariffs were announced.

There are costs to businesses to get their good CUSMA-certified, which is why some businesses had previously chosen to not go through with the certification process in the past bcos the tariffs were low enough that businesses deemed paying for those low tariffs were the cheaper and easier option. Now that it is no longer the case, businesses will have to adjust.

Estimated by whom? Source? Not a newspaper article, but a primary source with current data from this year/FY.

Originally Posted by Traum

Most analysts agree that Carney's preferred solution is to negotiate some decent (trade) terms under a renewed CUSMA, and that seems to be happening. Engaging in on-going trade talks isn't doing nothing, but everyone knows that the problem with trade talk negotiations is -- Trump and the US have little intention to negotiate in good faith. So how do you negotiate with a party like that? And how would *you* (or your PP) negotiate with a party like that?

"Most analysts" ....such as? "Good faith" also works both ways. There are many issues that the Office of the US Trade Representative lists the unfair trade practices it claims Canada engages in, starting on page 57:

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files...E%20Report.pdf

Originally Posted by Traum

If Canada had made concession after concession as you claim, our supply chain management system would already have been dismantled and Quebec farmers up in arms, and our auto manufacturing, steel and aluminum, and soft wood lumber sectors would already have all folded.

Canada made concessions and got nothing in return. That is just poor negotiating.

[EvoFire]

Originally Posted by Traum

I love it when you only choose to selectively look at things.

It is estimated that up to 90% of goods exported from Canada can be CUSMA compliant. In the past, only ~40% of the goods exported to the US are covered by CUSMA, but that has increased to over 50% since the tariffs were announced.

There are costs to businesses to get their good CUSMA-certified, which is why some businesses had previously chosen to not go through with the certification process in the past bcos the tariffs were low enough that businesses deemed paying for those low tariffs were the cheaper and easier option. Now that it is no longer the case, businesses will have to adjust.

Most analysts agree that Carney's preferred solution is to negotiate some decent (trade) terms under a renewed CUSMA, and that seems to be happening. Engaging in on-going trade talks isn't doing nothing, but everyone knows that the problem with trade talk negotiations is -- Trump and the US have little intention to negotiate in good faith. So how do you negotiate with a party like that? And how would *you* (or your PP) negotiate with a party like that?

If Canada had made concession after concession as you claim, our supply chain management system would already have been dismantled and Quebec farmers up in arms, and our auto manufacturing, steel and aluminum, and soft wood lumber sectors would already have all folded.

It's like arguing with a flat earther

[Jason00S2000]

Originally Posted by 68style

Boohoo the country is so shit it's going to fucking hell everywhere you turn... so I went for a hike through Grassi Lakes today

Off to Rae Glacier for a 4 hour hike on Sunday, hopefully more of these X nightmare prophecies are fulfilled THERE! Grassi was a disappointment to my world ending views.

[Eff-1]

Originally Posted by VRYALT3R3D

That is just poor negotiating.

Keyboard warriors love criticizing Carney's negotiation tactics with Donald Trump as if they know better, when actually:

- They have very little insight into the conversations and what is actually discussed and said between the two parties.

- Donald Trump operates like a 3-yr old toddler. He's tempermental, illogical and changes his mind on a dime without any warning.

Even so, they will claim all day long that Carney is a poor negotiator.

At least wait for the deal to be signed and read the details on it before making any judgment on Carney's negotiation skills. Otherwise you look silly.

[Traum]

To be fair, Carney's style so far on how he does things seem to be keeping nearly all the policy / negotiation details hush hush until they are ready to roll it out to the public. Personally, I'd like to see more transparency so that the Canadian public can offer some degree of influence, or at least be kept in the know (of sorts) while policy negotiations happen. At the same time, I recognize there are pros and cons to his way of doing things, and for now, I am not disappointed about his way of doing things. For the most part, the trade negotiations, economic policies, and fiscal commitments we've seen so far seem to be rational and heading in the right direction.

However, the biggest problem that I can foresee is -- the Carney gov still hasn't issued any fiscal / budget updates yet. And based on all the spendings we have committed to so far, I can't see how the next budget is gonna be anything but extremely expensive and deep in the red. And because of that expectation, I am more confused than ever as to why the Carney gov isn't letting out any rumours on how expensive the next budget is gonna be. If it just comes out as a hugely expensive bill, there is definitely gonna be a lot of blowback. IMO, it'd make more sense to mentally prep the Canadian public about the upcoming deficit budget to soften the blow when the blow actually lands.

[Jason00S2000]

Oh, Canada...

[blkgsr]

SMRT

[Traum]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vancouver-...130016754.html

In a statement, the Vancouver park board said, “Parents are welcome to support and guide their children at our pools. However, organized and structured private swim instruction, including formal lessons, is not permitted unless it is provided by authorized aquatics staff or through an approved private business.”

The board explained that anyone offering formal swim instruction at a public pool must meet liability standards, including holding a municipal business licence and insurance that meets park board requirements. “These standards help ensure that all instruction is delivered safely, consistently, and in alignment with facility guidelines.”

Last I checked my common sense, parents are already responsible and liable for their children's safety. So what kind of BS is this stupid policy?

I can understand how Parks Board / the muni gov are concerned about liability. But if parents / guardians aren't allowed to teach their kids something as simple and essential as swimming, then the Parks Board / muni gov better have the capacity to offer free lessons to satisfy the demand because they are removing the fundamental rights of parents to raise and teach their children essential life skills.

What a bunch of morons...

[Hondaracer]

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/video/...ariffs-on-u-s/

Reporter asks so the plan is to “accept the best of a bad deal” and guy has nothing to say in return

Just another Trudeau ffs

Remove retaliatory tariffs, accept all other tariffs, carry on

Honestly.. as this stage in the game, 7 months in of Carney, 11 years of this regime.. I’m PRETTY sure PP could have done the same.. as in.. nothing?

Notice how we’ve never once actually like.. celebrated a development? Not once?

It’s been nothing but “but.. it’s Trump!!”

“But what would PP have done?!?”

Never once been like oh yea, that actually worked out great for us

[68style]

At least PP can go back to his actual job of being official parliament whiner now

He’s the human representation of a like and subscribe tagline… nobody listening and just waiting for him to stop talking.

I hope you find a new leader that’s not a total fuckin loser, I really do. Nobody wins when there’s not legitimate options in play.

[Jason00S2000]

Twitter X

What happened to following the science?

[Jason00S2000]

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

Notice how we’ve never once actually like.. celebrated a development? Not once?

Canada is a weird experiment of a country and the people in charge hate the people.

[Traum]

I agree it doesn't look good to remove the retaliatory tariffs. As I have mentioned before, at this stage, I'd much rather to just bite the bullet and tough it out, while inflicting as much pain as we can on the US with retaliatory measures. It wouldn't cause massive harm to the US, and it will definitely hurt ourselves more. But it would still cause massive harm to select populations and sectors in the US -- much like how some portion of the US distilled spirits sector is going into bankruptcy.

They need our aluminum. They need our lumber. They need our potash. And they need our energy. We should use these to inflict maximum pain, even if it means we'd be hurting ourselves in the process.

At the same time, I also understand how this could be used as a gesture of good will in furthering the negotiations. So if we do end up getting a low tariff deal as a result -- somewhere in the 10 - 15% range, based on what the UK and EU has managed to get, it would still be a reluctantly acceptable compromise.

If Carney is unable to get that (and continues without any retaliatory measures), then I'd join in on the agreement that he is not a tough enough negotiator and leader.

But I'll reserve judgement for now, until things clear up a bit more.

Originally Posted by Hondaracer

https://vancouver.citynews.ca/video/...ariffs-on-u-s/

Reporter asks so the plan is to “accept the best of a bad deal” and guy has nothing to say in return

Just another Trudeau ffs

Remove retaliatory tariffs, accept all other tariffs, carry on

[Jason00S2000]

Originally Posted by Traum

But I'll reserve judgement for now, until things clear up a bit more.

Always the best route!

[Jason00S2000]

Twitter X

[supafamous]

Originally Posted by Traum

I agree it doesn't look good to remove the retaliatory tariffs. As I have mentioned before, at this stage, I'd much rather to just bite the bullet and tough it out, while inflicting as much pain as we can on the US with retaliatory measures. It wouldn't cause massive harm to the US, and it will definitely hurt ourselves more. But it would still cause massive harm to select populations and sectors in the US -- much like how some portion of the US distilled spirits sector is going into bankruptcy.

They need our aluminum. They need our lumber. They need our potash. And they need our energy. We should use these to inflict maximum pain, even if it means we'd be hurting ourselves in the process.

At the same time, I also understand how this could be used as a gesture of good will in furthering the negotiations. So if we do end up getting a low tariff deal as a result -- somewhere in the 10 - 15% range, based on what the UK and EU has managed to get, it would still be a reluctantly acceptable compromise.

If Carney is unable to get that (and continues without any retaliatory measures), then I'd join in on the agreement that he is not a tough enough negotiator and leader.

But I'll reserve judgement for now, until things clear up a bit more.

To some degree I'm surprised that we backed off on the retaliatory tariffs but I think the state of play has changed as well:

- Other than Canada only China went with retaliatory tariffs and China was prepared to go all out on that fight. Culturally and politically, China was willing to hurt themselves in order to hurt the US and the US has blinked. Canada has access to resources that would really hurt the US but there's no cultural appetite to endure hardship like the China.
- Without other countries playing the retaliation game it's hard to stand up to the bully. When Mexico and the EU backed off the idea it largely meant Canada was standing alone on this.
- We've seen that the US (Trump) is not in anyway logical - they only know how to escalate and extort, they don't know how to negotiate or discuss. In that game state, escalating stakes only works if you're willing to hold your breathe more and we've seen only China has the power to bring the US to its knees (it would have been pretty delicious to see though).
- The impact of tariffs on the US economy has taken a lot longer to filter through so the US wasn't experiencing enough pain to want to negotiate. We're only now starting to see the effects of tariffs on the price of goods and I suspect it'll be 2026 before we really see the pain for US companies and consumers. Bankruptcies aren't going to take off till next year.

So the retaliation card is no longer a useful card to play - it's only useful if the other side will back down and the other side isn't feeling enough pain yet AND they're just plain stupid.

At this point, a continued boycott by Canadian consumers remains the most viable strategy. Dropping US alcohol has hurt and reducing travel has hurt and neither (and others) will affect negotiations.

[VRYALT3R3D]

Originally Posted by supafamous

- The impact of tariffs on the US economy has taken a lot longer to filter through so the US wasn't experiencing enough pain to want to negotiate. We're only now starting to see the effects of tariffs on the price of goods and I suspect it'll be 2026 before we really see the pain for US companies and consumers. Bankruptcies aren't going to take off till next year.

Thanks for the conjecture and hyperbole... I guess.

Bro.

Cheers,

[Traum]

Originally Posted by Traum

I agree it doesn't look good to remove the retaliatory tariffs.

I spoke too soon about my sentiments on the cancellation of some retaliatory tariffs. (And I should have known better than to just fall for Honda's click bait post LOL~)

We are cancelling the retaliatory tariffs on American products that are covered under CUSMA, and I don't actually have a problem with that.

As I understand, the US is currently not charging tariffs on Canadian goods exported to the US that are covered under CUSMA. So essentially, the tariff cancellation right now is just an action that matches what the US is currently doing, so I am OK with that.

My sentiments expressed in the rest of my previous post remain unchanged. I'll reserve my judgement about Carney for now until the coast clears up some more. And based on Carney's press conference, it seems to me that the goal he is seeking continues to be an adjusted CUSMA deal that forms the bedrock of our trade with the US. And as mentioned before, I'd expect something that puts us in the 10 - 15% tariff range, based on what UK and EU have negotiated.

But we will see.

[VRYALT3R3D]

Ontario loses 38,000 jobs as U.S. tariffs hit manufacturing sector

Ontario lost tens of thousands of jobs in the past three months, according to the province’s financial watchdog, as the impacts of tariffs from the United States begin to bite.


A new report published by the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario found employment had dropped by 38,000 jobs in the province during the second quarter of the year.

“The unemployment rate rose for the ninth consecutive quarter, reaching 7.8 per cent in 2025 Q2,” part of the report said.

“This is 2.6 percentage points higher than the low of 5.2 per cent recorded in 2023 Q1, and marks the highest unemployment rate since late 2012, excluding the pandemic.”

The report found tariffs levied by U.S. President Donald Trump on Canadian imports to his country were behind some of the changes.

The largest drop in employment came in manufacturing, where 29,400 jobs were lost in the second quarter of 2025. Business, building and support services lost 14,900. There were also substantial drops in employment in transportation and warehousing, as well as in agriculture.

Overall, employment in Ontario’s industrial sector dropped by 3.5 per cent in the second quarter of 2025 — a change the financial watchdog attributed to U.S. tariffs.

https://globalnews.ca/news/11344184/...-quarter-2025/

[GLOW]

Originally Posted by Traum

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/vancouver-...130016754.html

Last I checked my common sense, parents are already responsible and liable for their children's safety. So what kind of BS is this stupid policy?

I can understand how Parks Board / the muni gov are concerned about liability. But if parents / guardians aren't allowed to teach their kids something as simple and essential as swimming, then the Parks Board / muni gov better have the capacity to offer free lessons to satisfy the demand because they are removing the fundamental rights of parents to raise and teach their children essential life skills.

What a bunch of morons...

based on the press release statement, i interpret it as parents can teach their kids, you just can't have a formal/structured 3rd party swim lesson happening. which makes sense, that would be like bringing outside food and drink to a restaurant.

i agree, it's near impossible post covid to get public swim lessons, private or public, i don't know where all the instructors went. i think if they can work with/vet 3rd party instructors to fill the need / capacity it would be a good idea if there aren't enough staff to provide said services, but i doubt that would happen, too much risk/liability/work to figure it out.

[westopher]

It’s the same as teaching kids to snowboard/ski on the mountain. You totally can teach your own kids. You can’t bring a private instructor (or be a licensed private instructor) teaching on the mountain due to liability issue.
This was an example of poor training of the staff to enforce the rule, not the rule itself being the issue.

[68style]

Same at the gym too, you get clowns come in with a girl they’re trying to impress and they start personal training them… I mean to a certain extent it’s okay just keep to yourselves and be quiet but if they’re like barking out orders and counting reps and stuff it crosses a line and they get told hey if you want to get licensed and work here then go for it but otherwise knock it off.

[Manic!]

BC cons have set up a new party to run in municipal elections. This will make it easier to know who not to vote for but do we really want/need this?

https://vancouversun.com/news/bc-con...unicipal-party