Monday, August 24, 2026

How Mark Carney Screwed Over Canada

The installed former banker with a poor record, with a majority of his personal stocks in the US and who vacationed in Italy while a chunk of British Columbian forests burned to the ground can use militaristic language all he likes - 

(Sidebar: I will say nothing of the performative mouth action of Ontario's chief big, dumb animal.)

- but everyone knows that blaming Trump/the US/Russians/global warming/any other deflection will get us nowhere:

According to Greer, the two sides then shifted their focus to finalizing the agreement.

However, he said Canada subsequently sought additional concessions.

“Then we set about to finalize it, and then in the last hours, I think there were things that the Canadians just — you know, they wanted more,” Greer said.

Greer's account contrasts with the explanation offered by Canadian prime minister, who have accused Washington of introducing new demands late in the negotiations.

“In recent days, the U.S. proposed new terms that were uneconomic, unfair, and undermined the net benefits to Canada, calling into question the reliability of any deal,” Carney said.

He added: “We cannot accept what they have offered, and we will not give what they have asked.”

According to Carney, the US proposals also included restrictions affecting Canada's ability to establish new trade agreements with other countries.

The competing accounts have left the two sides at an impasse, with Washington blaming Ottawa for demanding more and Canada accusing the Trump administration of changing the terms at the last moment.

** 

The United States had offered to reduce its tariffs onsteel, aluminum and autos, and eliminate a recently imposed tariff on Canadianlumber, before negotiations suddenly collapsed last night, Jamieson Greer, the U.S. trade representative, said Saturday.

In an interview with The New York Times, Mr. Greer detailed previously confidential and unreported elements of the U.S. trade offer to Canada, saying those measures would have given Canada the most preferential treatment of any trading partner.

** 

But the prevailing argument on the U.S. side was that the decisive breakdown came not from divisions within the administration, but from a late Canadian ask, according to five people familiar with the talks. Two of the people familiar said that U.S. tariff rates on heavy-duty trucks were the sticking point between the two countries.

“The reality is simply that [the Canadians] kept bringing up last-minute changes related to the 232 tariffs, and that’s what largely derailed the negotiations,” the White House official said.

**

 **

 

 

Where does that leave Canada?

Here:

Details of the deal weren't made public. In fact, according to sources from multiple provinces, Carney provided few details to premiers. While Carney asked premiers on the call to put American booze back on the shelves, he didn't ask them for an answer immediately.

A rep from one province described the call as "high level" and said that Carney's team is "still finalizing some landing spots" when it comes to where various tariffs will land. Another provincial rep said the feds were doing their best and that the results were better than expected, even if not as good as before Trump imposed tariffs.

(Sidebar: and those details will never be completely released.)

** 

Whatever the reason, the economic cost to Canadians of the ongoing tariff war will increase the longer it goes on.

Canada lost 51,800 manufacturing jobs in the 12 months after Trump announced his so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs on April 2, 2025 of 50% on steel and aluminum, and 25% on the auto sector.

Prior to the collapse of the trade talks between Canada and the U.S. late Friday, University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe estimated Trump’s latest round of 50% tariffs on $28 billion worth of Canadian goods would result in almost 90,000 direct and indirect job losses across Canada, including 36,000 in Ontario, 18,000 in Quebec, 11,000 in B.C. and 9,000 in Alberta.

Writing in thehub.ca, Tombe said this alone would raise the current national unemployment rate of 6.4% to 6.8%.

“Using the full list of items subject to U.S. tariffs, I estimate that the most exposed sectors are machinery and electronics, plastics and rubber, furniture, toys, wood products, chemicals, food products, and clothing,” Tombe wrote.

“Roughly half of textile exports to the United States would be affected, and nearly as high a share of furniture exports.”

A report earlier this month by the Canadian American Business Council done by Oxford Economics estimated an all-out trade war between Canada and the U.S. leading to a breakdown of CUSMA would result in 102,000 lost jobs in Canada next year.

It would also mean a cumulative loss of $5,987 per Canadian household over 10 years and a $271 billion loss in GDP over the same period.

“Four decades of economic integration (between Canada and the U.S.) have overwhelmingly generated economic benefits for American and Canadian businesses, workers and consumers, and those benefits would be placed at risk under all elevated-tariff scenarios,” the report concludes.

** 

Jivani said that Carney's announcement of matching dollar-for-dollar tariffs was an "overreaction" that reflected his broader lack of a long-term, strategic focus on Canada's relationship with its southern neighbour and biggest customer.

"I do think it's an overreaction," said Jivani.

"We can't lose sight of the fact that it didn't have to play out this way," he added. "And maybe this is why trying to figure out these complicated, nuanced things in a matter of hours instead of weeks is a bad idea."

Jivani said that Carney and his negotiating team made the critical mistake of not getting serious about making a new trade deal with the U.S. until U.S. President Donald Trump raised the threat of 50 per cent Section 338 tariffs last month.

"This has been months and months, in my view, of setting the stage for this to fail … At the end of the day, I think we have to hold the prime minister accountable for not putting his best foot forward," said Jivani.

** 

**

Canada’s trade negotiations with the United States have failed. Washington has imposed 50% tariffs on approximately $28 billion worth of Canadian products, and Prime Minister Mark Carney has promised a dollar-for-dollar response beginning Sept. 8.

Retaliation may be politically inevitable. But Ottawa must proceed very carefully. In attempting to punish Washington, Canada could easily end up punishing Canadian families at the grocery store.

Tariffs are taxes. Full stop.

A Canadian counter-tariff is collected from the Canadian company importing the American product. The exporter may absorb some of the cost, but importers, distributors and retailers will inevitably pass part of it along. Grocery margins are already thin.

Eventually, the cost appears at the checkout.

We learned that lesson in 2025, when the Trudeau government imposed 25% counter-tariffs on a remarkably broad range of American products. The list included orange juice, peanut butter, coffee, tea, chocolate, rice, pasta, fruit, vegetables, poultry, dairy products, cooking oils, sauces and soups.

It was political theatre masquerading as food policy.

A subsequent Bank of Canada study found that prices for tariffed goods increased by approximately 6% relative to comparable untariffed products. For tariffed food and beverages, the increase approached 8% at its summer peak. Retailers did not pass along the entire tariff, but consumers clearly paid part of it.

Most of those consumer tariffs were removed after six months, limiting the damage. This time, however, the retaliation could be broader, higher and more persistent. If food, ingredients, packaging and agricultural equipment are included, the combined cost could approach $200 annually for an average Canadian household. That estimate reflects not only direct tariff costs, but also the expense of changing suppliers, importing from more distant markets and operating a less efficient supply chain.

Lower-income households would be hit hardest. They have fewer opportunities to stock up, shop at several stores or buy in bulk. Food inflation is also cumulative. Canadians do not recover the purchasing power lost after years of higher grocery prices simply because inflation eventually slows.

Food prices are already roughly 27% higher than they were five years ago. Still, adding more pressure would be reckless.

There is also the risk of a price-umbrella effect. When an American product becomes more expensive, competing Canadian and foreign brands face less pressure to keep their prices down. Importers may replace nearby American suppliers with more distant sources, increasing transportation, warehousing and contracting costs.

The Bank of Canada did not find a statistically significant broad spillover to substitutes in 2025. That is reassuring, but it is no guarantee this time. The coming tariffs could last for years rather than months. The same research found that retailers passed along more of the cost when they believed tariffs would remain. Expectations matter.

Once companies conclude that a tariff is permanent, they renegotiate contracts, change suppliers, rebuild distribution networks and reset prices. Those costs can spread well beyond the products appearing on Ottawa’s retaliation list.

This is why food must be spared.

Nonsense!

The sheep won't hear of it.

It's either reflexive jingoism or go to the place that was once our home. 

 

 

Canadians must live with their self-inflicted wounds whether on the world stage, the check-out, the pump or even what was the privacy of their own homes.

You can't blame Trump forever.

 

 

 

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)