Canada-US Trade Relations

[jollyjacktar]

I dont think the two leaders get along.

They are oil and water.  I can sympathize with Trump, l don't like Trudeau either.

 

[Remius]

Do we actually do that?

No.  The NAFTA issue was over a sunset clause.  The US wanted a five year expiry time frame for NAFTA.

 

[Remius]

I seriously think that the businessman in him got fed up with Trudeau and Freeland demanding non-Trade related clauses to be added to the renewed NAFTA agreement.  He likely sees no reason to bicker over how to fill quotas of female workers within companies, aboriginal Rights, and other clauses on Trudeau's social engineering list.  He therefore, just reverted back to Pre-NAFTA tariff policies and put pressure on both Canada and Mexico to use some common sense in their negotiations and drop the social engineering clauses. 

Trudeau's reaction in creating our own tariffs on such things as Maple Syrup, is reminiscent of a spoiled child not getting his way and having a tantrum.  By the way, I thought we exported Maple Syrup.

Trudeau's bringing up "Canadian Troops have fought alongside Americans" was a great insult to Veterans who still have not gotten over his words that "Veterans are asking for more than we can give". 

Trudeau has to accept the blame on this one, and stop playing the "Blame Game".

George, are you saying that Trudeau is responsible for Trump’s new tariffs on EU, Mexico and China?  Come on.  This is a political move by Trump that looks to backfire.

About the maple syrup thing.  You might think it’s a tantrum but it looks like a carefully crafted list by bureaucrats (I don’t give Trudeau any credit for coming up with this) likely developed after the last threat to target specific congressmen and senators and areas that will hurt Trump supporters.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/steel-tariff-maple-syrup-toilet-paper-1.4686833

 

[George Wallace]

George, are you saying that Trudeau is responsible for Trump’s new tariffs on EU, Mexico and China?  Come on.  This is a political move by Trump that looks to backfire.

Trump is a business man. 

Stop and look back at some of the demands that Trudeau and Freeland were making, in adding clauses to NAFTA that really had no relevance to an agreement on international Trade.  I am sure that these demands at 'social engineering' have been a royal pain in the butt to all negotiators.  I am sure that the US frustration in these negotiations is now showing.  No NAFTA and we are all back to pre-NAFTA tariffs.  A reciprocal act of placing Canadian tariffs on American products looks more like that of a "spoiled child" having not gotten their way.  Pressure is now on for Canada and Mexico to get serious in negotiations. 

So, yes, I am saying that Trudeau brought this on himself.  He is the catalyst.

 

[Remius]

Trump is a business man. 

Stop and look back at some of the demands that Trudeau and Freeland were making, in adding clauses to NAFTA that really had no relevance to an agreement on international Trade.  I am sure that these demands at 'social engineering' have been a royal pain in the butt to all negotiators.  I am sure that the US frustration in these negotiations is now showing.  No NAFTA and we are all back to pre-NAFTA tariffs.  A reciprocal act of placing Canadian tariffs on American products looks more like that of a "spoiled child" having not gotten their way.  Pressure is now on for Canada and Mexico to get serious in negotiations. 

So, yes, I am saying that Trudeau brought this on himself.  He is the catalyst.

I’m legitimatly interested in said clauses that seem to be the issue.  Do you happen to have a list I could look at.  Right now the biggest issues seem to be supply management, sunset clause and a removal of the dispute resolution mechanism.  Neither side seems to want to budge.  In fact an offer was made that as long as Canada agreed to a five year sunset clause then they had a deal.  Something Canada won’t accept.

Retaliatory tariffs are in reaction to what seems to be a flimsy excuse for tariffs on the US’ part.

 

[George Wallace]

I’m legitimatly interested in said clauses that seem to be the issue.  Do you happen to have a list I could look at. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/americas/canada-wants-a-new-nafta-to-include-gender-and-indigenous-rights.html

Canada recently added its first gender chapter in its 20-year-old free-trade deal with Chile, which called for both countries to apply a gender lens to trade. As for the “indigenous chapter,” Ms. Freeland told reporters it was a “fresh area” that came at the suggestion of Perry Bellegarde, who represents most of the country’s indigenous people.

..................

The Trudeau government has made gender equality, climate change and reconciliation with indigenous people central to its policies. The first thing Mr. Trudeau did as prime minister was to name the country’s first gender-balanced cabinet.

Among the six objectives laid out by Ms. Freeland, many were not surprising to Canadians, who have been deluged by panicky news reports since Mr. Trump first threatened to destroy the agreement. The government wants to safeguard the country’s culture, and protect portions of its tightly managed agricultural system, which Mr. Trump has called a disgrace and unfair to American farmers when it comes to dairy. The system limits dairy, poultry and egg production and assigns them quotas, and protects farmers from import competition by imposing tariffs of up to 300 percent on some products.

 

[Remius]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/14/world/americas/canada-wants-a-new-nafta-to-include-gender-and-indigenous-rights.html

Ok.  Thanks for that ill take a read.  But specifically to NAFTA.  I haven’t found anything relating to that and how it seems to be a show stopper.  Everything seems to be about the three things I mentioned: sunset clause, supply management and dispute resolution.

That article seems to be about Chile...


Edit:  took a closer look.  Ok so they are taking or adding that to their approach but what clause exactly is causing the issue?  And how binding are they?  One would think it would be brought up?  The article was written before négociations began and is speculating.  Where do we currently stand?  What point are we at with that stuff in the nafta agreement?

 

[tomahawk6]

China is the biggest producer of steel and aluminum.The US ranks fourth in the world for steel and 9th for aluminum produced.The US produced 81m metric tons of steel.China produces as much steel in a month as the US does in a year ,831.7 metric tons. Japan is number 2 at 6% of total world output followed by India at 6.2.

 

[Journeyman]

China is the biggest producer of steel and aluminum......

a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.

b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?

 

[Remius]

a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.

b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?

b) The official reason is “national security...”

 

[Journeyman]

b) The official reason is “national security...”

Yes, so I've read; thank you.  I was hoping for a rational reason.

....or hell, even an unrational reason that attempts to explain how a tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum will eliminate some make-believe security gap -- if only for the inevitable humour and/or clutching at imaginary straws.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yes, so I've read; thank you.  I was hoping for a rational reason.

....or hell, even an unrational reason that attempts to explain how a tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum will eliminate some make-believe security gap -- if only for the inevitable humour and/or clutching at imaginary straws.

Not that I am defending Trump, but in some circles I am reading/hearing that China uses Canada to flow steel (and aluminum, i guess), by selling to Canadian companies who do minimal work with it and then re-export to the US.

What I am finding difficult is discovering if this is actually true, or just opinion.

 

[Rifleman62]

I read that also.

Somewhat along that line: https://globalnews.ca/news/4107759/steel-tariffs-chinese-dumping-justin-trudeau/

Canada targets dumped steel from countries like China with new measures - 28 Mar 18

Extract: In a statement shared with reporters Tuesday morning, the Prime Minister’s Office said the government is bringing forward new regulations to crack down on countries like China that dump their steel and aluminum in foreign markets at unfairly cheap prices.

“Canada is a trading nation, and we will not allow North American industries to be hurt or threatened by unfair trade practices, like the diversion of steel and aluminum,” said Trudeau in the statement.

....... 'Canada will not be used as a backdoor into other North American markets." .....

 

[tomahawk6]

I am confident that an agreement may be reached.We have too many other common areas except climate change,which I agree that its junk and unproven.

a)  Still no answer to this, although I'm not surprised;  apparently proclaiming "fake news" is now a Pavlovian thing.

b)  So, by the diagram you chose to provide, why is Canada so deserving of steel/aluminum trade sanctions?

Thats why I think there is a problem with Trudeau.According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.Since O and Trudeau are politically similar.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html

 

[dimsum]

Thats why I think there is a problem with Trudeau.According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.Since O and Trudeau are politically similar.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html

I'm going to attribute it to early (for a Saturday) morning, but I'm not seeing from those two articles how the NYT is saying Obama wanted to sabotage US-Canada relations.  It's not really a secret, nor a surprise, that Obama and PMJT are close (at least politically shaped to look that way).

 

[tomahawk6]

The only link I found a few days ago is behind a subscription wall at NYT.I dont even know if what they printed, is accurate.I will keep digging.

 

[FJAG]

An absolutely bang-on speech by Ronald Reagan back in 1988 that addresses the foolishness of the Trumpian view on world trade and the whole tariff issue.

This week, as we prepared for Thanksgiving, Canada held an important election, and I’m pleased to again send my congratulations to Prime Minister Mulroney. One of the important issues in the Canadian election was trade. And like our own citizens earlier this month, our neighbors have sent a strong message, rejecting protectionism and reaffirming that more trade, not less, is the wave of the future.
…
Over the past 200 years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists but it has also proven itself in the real world, where we have seen free-trading nations prosper while protectionist countries fall behind.

America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country—the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.

Ever since that time, the American people have stayed true to our heritage by rejecting the siren song of protectionism.
…
Part of the difficulty in accepting the good news about trade is in our words. We too often talk about trade while using the vocabulary of war. In war, for one side to win, the other must lose. But commerce is not warfare. Trade is an economic alliance that benefits both countries. There are no losers, only winners. And trade helps strengthen the free world.

Yet today protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism, a fig leaf for those unwilling to maintain America’s military strength and who lack the resolve to stand up to real enemies—countries that would use violence against us or our allies. Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies; they are our allies. We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends—weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world—all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion; it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve, and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.

https://www.macleans.ca/news/world/ronald-reagan-had-a-message-about-free-trade-with-canada-that-donald-trump-needs-to-hear/

:cheers:

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Not that I am defending Trump, but in some circles I am reading/hearing that China uses Canada to flow steel (and aluminum, i guess), by selling to Canadian companies who do minimal work with it and then re-export to the US.

What I am finding difficult is discovering if this is actually true, or just opinion.

As I have previously posted:

Quote from: recceguy on March 15, 2018, 17:30:54
Partly because of the steel we buy from China, then gets transshipped into the States.

A surplus that small is pocket change and not worth the discussion. Trump throws all kinds of stuff out there. He's a master negotiator. Besides, he's not really involved in them is he?

All this is just jockeying for position. The real negotiations are next month in the US.

Just my opinion, of course.

Just some facts from US government:

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-Canada.pdf

Steel Imports Report: Canada
Imports by Top Source
The top 5 source countries for Canada’s steel imports represented 79 percent of Canada’s total steel import volume in 2016 at 6.1 million
metrics tons (mmt).

The United States by far accounted for the largest share of Canada’s imports by source country at 5 percent (4.5 mmt), followed by China at 9 percent (0.7 mmt), South Korea at 5 percent (0.4 mmt), Japan at 3 percent (0.3 mmt), and Taiwan at 3 percent (0.2 mmt).

Notably, while Canada’s top source countries have shifted from year to year, the United States has ranked as Canada’s top import source for steel products for more than 20 years.

And the US Steel Report:

https://www.trade.gov/steel/countries/pdfs/imports-us.pdf

Quote
Imports by Top Source
The top 10 source countries for U.S. steel imports represented 78 percent of the total steel import volume in YTD 2017 at 21 million metrics tons (mmt).
Canada accounted for the largest share of U.S. imports by source country at 16 percent (4.3 mmt), followed by Brazil at 13 percent (3.6 mmt), South Korea at 10 percent (2.7 mmt), Mexico at 9 percent (2.4 mmt), and Russia at 9 percent (2.4 mmt).

While the rankings of the top 10 source countries for U.S. imports has fluctuated over time, Canada has retained the top spot

So Canada imports more steel from US than it exports (4.5 mmt vice 4.3 mmt).  Canada  only import 0.7 mmt from China.  The net delta then is 0,5 mmt.  Given that the government is NOT a significant consumer of steel in Canada, and that most steel companies in Canada are foreign owned, I do not see any likelihood that Canada is "buying Chinese steel and transhipping it into the States".

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Thank-you!

 

[tomahawk6]

No tariff on oil imprts.