Arkouda

I would love to comment on the content of the article but paywalls are unfortunate.

So far US and Trump has been the only one using tariffs.

No. We have counter tariffs in place in Canada, and other countries have used counter tariffs in response to US Economic aggression as well.

Once we go this route other nations will employ the same tactics against us - what’s going to stop China from imposing tariffs on Canadian exports to China?

China already imposes numerous tariffs on Canada, and has routinely used them as weapons when we get into it with each other. This includes 100% tariffs on Canola oil, oil cakes, and peas; as well as 25% on pork and seafood products. Which were put in place in direct response to Canadian tariffs on China.

And why is Carney using tariffs at a time when there are serious threats to international trade regime?

The logic I have heard him give is this is meant to recoup some of the costs from tariffs against Canada, with the money gained from that going to support workers in the industries that are currently facing serious issues.

If he gave a different answer in the article, again, I cite the unfortunate pay wall.

If they don’t ask for damages the implication is that there’s no damage that needs restitution so no action is necessary from the courts to address the zero harm.

Reasonable people understand that damage must be caused before restitution, and as you pointed out there is currently zero harm done and a small representation of the Indigenous population in Ontario is trying to sue for 100 million for the bills simply being passed.

"how they were passed without respect to First Nations" is answered simply by "That is how our Government works. Your opinion is heard at election time and the Government does not need to consult you on each individual bill and you don't get to sue over any of it without damage being caused."

As I said, I support protesting and challenging the bills in higher courts. But suing for damages when no damage has been caused to create "Sort of a penalty, if you will, on the Crown for failure to act honourably," is absolutely absurd.

There is a reason why only 9 groups signed on.

Villify these folk however you want but they’re the only thing standing between us and Canada cranking up the climate crisis. I support them 100%>>

I am not vilifying anyone. I am pointing out that this is an unsupportable case and gave my reasons why. You are free to challenge my points, and hopefully explain how a case with zero damages shouldn't be immediately thrown out of court.

The First Nations are asking court to strike down the laws, require the federal and provincial governments to make a series of declarations about how they were passed without respect to First Nations or the constitution, and pay $100 million in damages to the communities.

I would argue that AI should be held to account for the information it provides, and until AI is capable of having a personal bank account, damages should be paid by the company who created it.

The only reason I see that AI doesn't "hold itself to account" is that it was never programmed to. Much like if you do not properly educate a young human, they will not be held accountable a lot of the time because we understand their actions are the result of how they were brought up and taught, or "programmed".

You do bring up a good point, but I see that as a failing on the Humans making the AI and restricting it, not a demonstration that AI wouldn't be capable of holding itself and its decisions to account if it was taught to like we need to be taught to.

The problem is we are so coupled to that ship recession is basically inevitable. We could say today "No more trade with the US" from the bottom of our hearts and mean it, but our Economy would collapse.

Even if we could perfectly and surgically decouple from the states, we still have to deal with the rest of the world being tied to that sinking ship.

Realistically we need to be ready for a recession, and hopefully, the maneuvering being done will limit the damage.

Do you have a license for this comment?

Knowing what I know of French history, I would never be a politician in France.

Opposing the bills in court is fine, but expecting $100,000,000 in "damages" for the bills simply passing is absurd and unsupportable.

Yeah, he is nice and direct. I actually worry that will prove a weakness in the long run. The politician shtick where you use a ton of words to say nothing is popular because it works.

Unfortunately I have to agree with this, but I am hoping he can pull something off to change that popular way politicians like to get elected. Not high hopes, rational people never seem to last, but it's all I got. haha

It’s possible we can manage a UK-style deal where we accept “only” 10% in exchange for whatever perceived concessions. Trump will probably want a much lower rate on US products, though. That would make it pretty hard to protect our domestic industries; they’d be losing US market share and not gaining market share here.

Considering what is known, Trumps proposal seems to be free trade for the US, tariffs for the "Privilege" of getting foreign products on US shelves, and no willingness to negotiate for anything less.

I think it is possible to manage as well, but you raise a good point about our domestic industries being hurt in those conditions.

I don't know what a good deal for Canada would even look like at this point considering I do not believe Trump is going to stop until we are a part of the US. I cannot imagine what our Government is dealing with behind closed doors, and the more information that comes out the more it seems like Carney's strengthening of ties with other partners is the priority while we dance with the devil buying some time.

Thank you for the hearty laugh!

If you are a Canadian, and have some time and resources, this is the time to make yourself the "Alternative to American tech". I would really like to see some initiatives from the Government on this, but citizens can take the lead and get it started to show the Government there is something to invest in.

Well, we’re probably getting something like that either way.

I believe a recession at this point is pretty unavoidable as well, but the impact it will have is what I perceive is within some kind of control.

I do wonder if people are expecting public smack-talk from Carney, which would never gain us anything.

This is what I think most people have a problem with. They aren't used to a PM who doesn't talk consistent smack, negotiate in public, or has some level of respect for the position.

Personally I find it refreshing the way Carney is moving. I may not agree with everything, but at least the logic is visible, and he is being pretty direct when he communicates.