Trump hits back at Canada. Should Carney respond?

0:00The nation is watching Alberta and we know it. I'm Kathleen Petty, host of West of Center. Every week I speak with the people shaping Alberta politics from pipelines to separation to help you understand what's going on here and why it matters to the entire country. Pull up a chair and join me, West of Center. Find us and follow wherever you get your podcasts. This is a CBC podcast. US President Donald Trump strikes back against Canada, returning Canada to a choice between retaliation or restraint. It's Wednesday, September 9th. I'm David Cochran. The Power and Politics podcast starts now. We begin with the latest escalation in the trade war. The US has responded to Canada's counter-terrorist with its own retaliation.

1:04It plans to hit Canada with more tariffs and some import bans, causing concern for some US states close to the border. We have people who are losing their homes because their jobs are going away because of tariffs. And nobody going to the grocery store can't notice that everything has gone up in price because of the trade wars that Donald Trump has initiated. This is absolutely outrageous what the President is doing to the state of Vermont. He has put a bullseye on the back of the Vermont economy. It's unconscionable in its wrong. Vermont Democratic Senator Peter Welch met with small businesses at the Canada U.S. border last week to push back against what he calls Trump's reckless trade war. And he recently introduced the Bad Deal Act to repeal and refund the President's 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. And Senator Peter Welch joins me now. Senator is good to see you again, so thank you for your time today.

2:04Thank you. We're all acutely aware of what all of this is doing on our side of the border, but you bought small businesses at the border last week brought them together and tried to send a message to the President about what the trade wars doing to Vermont. What can you tell us about that? It's really a catastrophe. I mean, it's beyond losing jobs for us. It's losing companies. I'll just give a specific example. We have this track manufacturer for snow moving equipment. They have $500,000 sales that are falling through because there'll be an additional $250,000 tariff placed on it. That company manufacturer is in Vermont and Wisconsin. It's viability is threatened. So what the President is doing, we know is very, very helpful to Canada, but it's truly bizarre that he's choosing to do so in a way that's incredibly damaging to Vermont and to really. The United States. So what do you make of this latest escalation last night, the President announced import bands on a variety of goods from Canada and swapped around some tariffs.

3:08I guess various things that you couldn't go without in your country are now terror free and other things are heavily tariff. We don't know if the Canadian government is going to respond, but it seems if they do, the Trump administration is determined to have the last word and this could just keep spiraling. What do you make of where things stand? They don't stand anywhere because essentially there's not a policy dispute that could be defined by the President other than that he's a bully and he wants to force capitulation and for Canada to cry uncle. So obviously Canada has to stand up for itself, but where the President is doing something that has no economic benefit and just economic detriment to Vermont. We're one of 34 states where you Canada are our major trading partner where he's doing it in a way that will hurt us as well as you, but also is going to hurt his election prospects. I mean the race in Michigan, the race in Maine, those are two states that are really hammered by these tariffs.

4:08So this is the President really being unstable as opposed to being smart about getting a good deal economically for us even at your expense. So he's doing these most recent trade actions using section 338 and this is the smooth holly legislation from 1930 thereabouts of our member correctly. It's sort of the suite of laws that helped us in the Great Depression. So it has a bit of a, you know, an infamous history. You're trying to repeal this right like this is part of your legislation. Is it just strip this power away from the President entirely? Is that what your legislation would seek to do? Yes, it would. With Senator Gillibrand, of course, New York, a border state, they're getting impacted just like us. And we would strip away any authority that the President has under that section to impose tariffs. And by the way, I don't think he does have authority to impose those tariffs. And secondly, it would refund all the money. Now, in order for us to pass that, I think we'll probably get unanimous democratic support, but we're going to have to get Republicans who are willing to put aside their fear of Trump and step forward on behalf of protecting their own constituents who are as adversely affected by these tariffs as folks who voted for a democratic.

5:25This is not a partisan deal. No, but that seems unlikely given sort of the capture of the Republican Party by sort of the Maga movement and by the President at this point in time does not Senator. So I wonder with the midterms coming up, you mentioned Maine, you mentioned Michigan, there is a path for your party to get control of the Senate has Chuck Schumer gotten behind this and said, if you get control of the Senate, this goes through this will get passed. Oh, yeah, no, he has gotten behind us using our legislative authority to repeal any tariff authority that the President is asserting in their number of bills, including one that he has an emico sponsor of. But, you know, the basic capitulation here is by the Senate as a whole, but led by the Republicans. Here are Constitution only the Senate in Congress have the authority to raise taxes, tariffs are attacks. Trump has trampled that and the Republicans who we need in order to stand up for our authority have capitulate to the President and that's out of fear.

6:32But at a certain point, you're seeing what's happened to farmers in Minnesota, you're seeing what's happening to farmers in Iowa and Nebraska. These are Republican states the last two and those folks are going to have an opportunity to express their point of view this November. But, you know, we really have a situation here that is quite mystifying it. There's not an economic case that the President is making about these tariffs and he's also bullying and really acting in pre-Pizar ways. You know, Lake America, Canada is the 51st state, the governor of Canada. All of this has nothing to do with advancing economic interest on our side of the border at your expense, which you might understand even though I would repudiate, but it has to do with his ego. Well, look, there have been a lot of ad hominin attacks against the Prime Minister and ad hydrant and attacks again in slake Ontario trying to call out Lake America.

7:33So there is a personal nature to this and you've called this a reckless trade war. Canada calls it a trade war. We define it on our screen right now below you, Canada, US trade war. James and Greer criticized Canada for saying it's just business. When he says he wants to, what do you make of that? Go ahead. Now, I heard him. He diminished it. He said it's only 5% and what's the big deal? Well, he wasn't with us in J Vermont where that company I mentioned, they can lose sales of their vehicles and their company literally could go out of business with this 50% tariff. We have a cheese company that has a $1 million machine out the border to come into Vermont. They're going to have to pay $500,000 more to get it. That sale will go through. So the James and Greer is diminishing the day-to-day reality, the everyday reality of folks who have spent their lives building companies on your side of the border and ours.

8:35He's a very smart guy. James said it, but he's got to do the work of the president. That is totally wrong what he said and really disrespectful of folks who have enterprises on both sides of the border. We had on our show last night, Canada's former ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman, who was the lead negotiator during the first phase of these renegotiations. Her assessment of essentially what the United States is asking for here is from Mark Karnie to agree to something which cements the economic death of core industries like the auto sector and maybe steal here in Canada. With the stated intention of the United States to re-industrialize these key sectors on the American side of the border, the natural consequence of that is de-industrializing those sectors on the Canadian side of the border. Given all of that and the demands and the attacks, do you see any kind of a path back to negotiations and any kind of a reasonable settlement because it seems scar tissue is building up at an alarming rate?

9:39Well, number one, I agree with her. And what's so profoundly wrong about the president's approach is that the US threat is not Canada. Canada and the US have to cooperate if we're going to be able to have an auto industry that is able to withstand the onslaught of China. So what the president is doing is going to ultimately hurt the auto industry on both sides of the border. But secondly, I do see a way. I mean bottom line here. This is just a willful president. He's not being advised that what he's doing is making any sense. He's a renegade on his own. And the reality of what is happening to good people on the Canadian side in the US side, I think in time and hopefully quickly is going to be so compelling that we have to reach an agreement. Last point I want to make. The president has bragged that the US MCA, the United States, Mexico, Canada trade agreement that he renegotiated.

10:42Is the best agreement we've ever had. You know what? He's right. Let's take advantage of US MCA. That was where together by cooperation, both sides of the border benefited. Senator, well, it's just one last question for me. Do you see in the absence of a midterm breakthrough for the Democrats in the Senate and the Democrats in the House, which is possible. I don't know how probable it is though because elections can change. Do you see critical mass anywhere in the Republicans that will come to your side on this trade dispute? You know, my biggest sadness is when I talk to Republicans, they he tariffs. I mean Republicans are a low tax party. They've always hated tariffs. And they won't say that publicly and they won't act in their official capacity to essentially stand up for their constituents, their companies, and defy the rampage of the president that's doing so much harm.

11:42I think the elections are going to be very important because if in fact the voters express their view that what Trump is doing is really hurting their pocketbook, then the Republican colleagues who are silent now will have to step forward for their own political salvation because the voters will have spoken. And we're going to say that we're going to have to step forward for our own political salvation. And we're going to have to step forward for our own political salvation. So I think the Republicans are going to have to step forward for our own political salvation. We're banning certain Canadian products from being imported into the United States starting on September 29th. US Trade Representative James Engrier called this action a natural consequence of the Canadian government's move to implement dollar for dollar tariffs. Plus starting September 15th, other products will be subject to 50% levies including some dairy, aluminum, and paper products. That list could scroll for a day.

12:47And more on this, I'm joined now by International Trade Lawyer William Pellerin. William, good to see you again. Thanks for coming to answer. My pleasure. This is escalation in that it's a new move, but what kind of escalation is this? You've had almost 24 hours to look at the list and assess the impact. So there's definitely some new industries that are being hit Canadian businesses that are found out that they are now suffering, that had dodged the bullet up until now, and find themselves subject to a 50% tariff. I think at the general economy-wide level, this is actually not that big of an escalation by the United States. I think there's a lot of war of words here, but ultimately, you know, a lot of products actually got removed from the tariff list by the United States at the same time as they added. And on the import ban, I mean, that's a big word, and that's a very aggressive move by the United States, and we shouldn't underplay that. But ultimately, all those products that are now in the import ban were products that were already hit by the 50% tariff, and so they really weren't flowing in the same way in any event.

13:52So in some ways, this hits really, really hard, and some businesses will suffer, but in other ways, I think this is kind of survivable, and not necessarily something that Canada has to retaliate on. Okay, that's interesting. So just to make sure I follow you here, the things that are banned were being tariff to the point that it was unprofitable to send into the US anyway, so there may not be a real material change from what was already a difficult circumstance for those areas. In the macro sense, they take off roughly equivalent to what they put on the tariff list, but they remove products and goods that they need, and it was inconvenient for them to have a tariff. So they're helping themselves here while keeping an equivalent amount of pain on the Canadian economy, but those new areas that are now hit. I mean, some of this is small and medium sized businesses, like factories, small factors that might make furniture, mattresses, these things, this puts them in a real, like how bad is it for those companies in particular? Yeah, we're looking at. For those companies, it's catastrophic, right? And I had a client basically say, you know, we're going to zero on our sales at the United States, we're laying off, and we're the major employer in this small town.

15:02And that's happened time and time again, it happened a few months back, and we're hearing it again, where it's like the company basically saying, I'm going to be responsible for shutting down this town. This is a manufacturing company, sort of, that's right. And so when that happens, where everyone in the town depends on that factory being there and having employees, even if it's just two or 300 employees, that really matters to the economy of that little region. And so that's what we're seeing, and companies that up until now had, you know, dodged the bullet because their type of furniture, or their type of cabinets, or their type of steel, hadn't been on the list yet. And now they find themselves at 7pm last night, you know, learning from their trade lawyer, or learning from the news that their products were tariffed, and that their sales are going to go to zero to the United States. And if the United States was 80% of their total sales, well, then they're basically done for in the short term. Right, so this is an important thing not to lose sight in this, because, you know, James Ungrier said in one of his comments, like, oh, the, you know, the things with the tariffs, it's only 5% of trade, that's essentially a rounding error.

16:06And like, yeah, in the macro sense, sure. But, you know, the lumber mills that are closing in British Columbia and in Quebec, it reminds you're growing up when a fish plant went down in a town. Right, like it took everything with it. There's a gravitational pull that goes with it. So even with that, you mentioned this is not necessarily something Canada needs to escalate against, because this could have been a heck of a lot worse. What, what do we divine from the US intentions and not hitting the real, the nuclear option here in the response? Yeah, so I think this is actually a pretty smart move by the United States. And I don't say that very often, but they, they're going to get hate for praising them. I know, but I know what you're saying. They recalibrated the tariffs much more than they escalated. Now, they're using really harsh words and saying, we're hitting Canada, and they deserve to be hit and Canada is the source of the problem. But in reality, what's actually behind all that rhetoric is more of a recalibration, right, understanding that their first round of tariffs really hit a lot of the wrong products. So now they're taking cement off the list, they're tailing toilet paper off the list, right, they're taking road salt off the list and so on. And why are they doing that because they realize that, well, they need Canada, they need those Canadian products, they were just shooting themselves in the foot, otherwise.

17:21And this is going to be bad for affordability and for the midterm elections in the United States and so on. So there's a lot of that posturing, which is more of a recalibration. And that's why I say, ultimately, economy wide, you look at this holistically, and if you're the prime minister, you're probably saying, OK, I don't need to escalate here. Let's try to wait this out a little bit and see if we can't get back to the negotiation table. But so that's where I kind of want to go with it as a final point, what you might get back to the negotiation table. It is hard to see that from where I sit. I mean, you're a trade lawyer, you do these negotiations. Politics is a whole different ballgame. I mean, what is the path back because as non escalatory as this was in your analysis, it still is, there's a whole new casually list that has been added to this framework, right. So how do you get back to the table and how do you resist what will be an impulse and a pressure to hit back? Yeah. I think ultimately, there will always be problems with those national security tariffs, the steel and the aluminum, the autos.

18:27I think those are not going to go away entirely. I do think that these latest 3, 3, 8 tariffs, these anti-discrimination caused by Canada's retaliation. I do think that there is probably a path that kind of wiped those clean on both sides of the border. I think when Comerheads prevail a little bit and saying, okay, we can give the United States a win. And I think that's absolutely critical. At some point, we need to find a way to give them a win that doesn't hurt us in any real way, whether it's the Keystone Pipeline or something else around dairy quotas or something of the sort. But if we can get to that place, I think we can probably wipe out what just happened in the last 48 hours or so. And try to get back to a place where now we're negotiating on the substantive stuff around US industrial policy on steel and aluminum and autos and get back to those issues that really are pervasive. But it seems like the win they want is the auto sector. You know, it's send us your aluminum, but don't send us aluminum derivatives because we want to make those.

19:33It seems align your tariff policy with our tariff policy if you want access to a market. These are wins they may want that Canada just can't give. I agree. This is the impasse we're in. How do we get through that? Comerheads are not going to change the math on those things. No, I think you need something else. I think you need a trigger around affordability, revolt in the United States, midterm elections, something where now that this is so much more present in the news, Americans are actually asking questions a little bit as to whether we ought to be in the trade war with Canada. I think it's becoming a realization. So maybe there's kind of that impetus even within the United States administration. I think we all are seeing a little bit of a split in terms of who's reasonable and who can be dealt with and who's being a little bit more aggressive and posturing. You're looking at James and Greer versus Secretary Lutnik for example and those different approaches to negotiation.

20:33I think it's about finding those windows and the right opportune time to try to get back to a reasonable place. Not going to be easy. I don't envy the Prime Minister and the team on this at all for sure. William always appreciate the insidenity expertise on this. This is International Trade Lawyer William Peller and thank you sir. My pleasure. US President Donald Trump is hitting back a Canada escalating the trade war overnight. Federal Energy Minister Tim Hodson says this is a moment of profound economic change. We are in a trade war. A trade war that we did not ask for but that we must win. British Columbia premier David EBS rolling out new welcome size in his province saying not to confuse Canada's kindness with weakness. British Columbia's wine sector will now face a US import ban and new section 338 terrorists expand duties to even more softwood products.

21:33Adrian Dix is the BC minister of energy and climate solutions and the acting minister of jobs and economic growth. So Adrian Dix you have your hands full these days. Thank you so much for joining us sir. Great to be on the show. I am not sure which round of escalation retaliation counter retaliation and escalation we are in. But as we are having this conversation we have not yet heard from the federal government. Has British Columbia been given any indication of what Mark Carnegie and his team are thinking about doing in response to this latest US action? Well I think the excellent thing about the Canadian response has been how unified it has been between the federal government and provinces. I know that does not always happen in Canada. So we are very supportive of the federal actions to date. Clearly the escalation last night is a new level from the United States government and I know that the prime minister will be responding to that. But really collectively we have been responding since the beginning of the Trump administration. Our focus has been building the economy here and you see the results.

22:36And this has an impact. This has had a short term impact. We see that US trade from British Columbia. Their share of our trade our exports is about 51% now. Obviously that's dramatically less than say Ontario which is in the 70s I believe. And that we would expect will drop but will only drop if we are able to diversify our markets as we are and find new markets and new investment in BC. And that's more of a challenge now. That's why we have to be united as a country regardless of the day to day of the measures. To build make our country more sovereign, more secure, more self-reliant and build our exports with other jurisdictions. But in terms of responding to this I take your point on the domestic trade barriers coming down the diversification new markets accelerating industrial developments. But in terms of responding to this, James and Greer called it rebalancing of trade that was made necessary by what Canada had done. It seems like the US is intent on not giving Canada the last word when it comes to trade action.

23:37So should Canada retaliate against these measures or kind of hold it right here and see if things stabilize for a bit? Well, what's important to recognize is how catastrophic some of these US actions are for the United States. And you saw a little bit of move yesterday on some material materials where the United States was clearly having problems. They had to step back from some of the actions they had taken. And obviously they've taken some new actions as well. But this is the US government. This is the new reality, which is a sort of permanent instability, a constant revolution from Mr. Trump, which we have to respond to on a day to day basis. But what we have to be is together and we are and continuing to take the actions, the premier reinforce that yesterday about our own alcohol ban, continue to take actions to ensure that we support other provinces in their struggles and also build our own procurement economy here. We got to do those things. I think the with respect to the Canadian government, I think the prime minister has been responding methodically and prudently to all of these actions, making sure that the actions we take don't hurt us more than they hurt them.

24:50That's important. And I think it's already you're already seeing some effects. Sometimes these actions, which have an effect, for example, on BC wine growers, what we saw last night from the US government. Sometimes these actions also reflect just how effective the Canadian response and the British Columbia response and other provinces as well has been. Right. Look, I understand that. I totally accept the need to focus on economic resilience here in Canada and the face of this. But yesterday, premier, EBS suggested BC was willing to do more. I know you rolled out the signs with the 51st state reference, for example, on it never the 51st state. But it seems as if at this point any kind of pushback against the United States will lead to further escalation from them. So is it wise at this point for British Columbia to respond to Donald Trump's latest move or from our karni and the federal government to respond to Donald Trump's latest move? When the Prime Minister has spoken Davos, he got a lot of attention. He talked about a rupture. We have to be responding every day.

25:54I've talked about building our economy here and diversifying our exports. But we need to respond to these actions. These actions are capricious. They're against the interests. Even of the United States, certainly against the interests of Canada. I think Canadians expect our government to respond. And they are. Not within every new cycle, of course, it's impossible to do that. This American government, and with the current president who creates his own new cycles seemingly at three and four in the morning. So do I understand that to mean every day? Do you see your view is that they should hit back on these? Minister, am I understanding that correctly? My view is that we will continue to do that as a country. And we don't have to follow the president's timeframe. And I know that the Prime Minister is doing a good job in that, meaning you don't respond immediately on the day, but several days later. And this is how the Prime Minister on this question has received such remarkable support from across the country and from Canadians.

26:55I'd say this finally. There's not just governments. Here in BC, if you know Vancouver a little bit, you know that people, a lot of people go down to Bellingham, go down to Seattle, a lot. And you see what British Columbians are doing, which is not going the continuing decline in border crossing from Canada to the United States. So if you think Canadians don't support the Prime Minister, him taking actions and taking more actions if necessary, as we will do. I think that is a misunderstanding from the United States. We need to continue to act, but we need to do so in our own interest. So I'm respectful of the Prime Minister's timeframe that he not have to go tit for tat with the US president, but he defend our interests every day. And I think that's what he's doing. I know that's what Premier EBS doing as well. So look, there's no question there's broad public support to hold firm here, even in the face of the economic consequences and costs. People are not going to Canada, but pretty soon a lot of products won't be going to Canada because they were banned from import into the United States with this executive order last night.

27:59That hits your wine sector, alcohol producers across the country. There's a letter from the British Columbia Forest Group Supreme Court, EBS saying they're kind of at a breaking point now with all of this, because it's not just a lumber tariffs, it's wood furniture and all of these other things that are continuously being targeted. How do you deal with that when these are such enormous shares of your economy, big players in the British Columbia economy, and the lumber industry in particular saying they need regulatory reform internally to help them deal with this. You're prepared to go that far. We need to strengthen our own economy, and we are taking those actions. We're going to continue to in particular in forestry and in addition to that, because the forestry thing, let's just let's face it, is not new from the United States. Forest industry has been facing kind of Donald Trump capriciousness for decades from the United States. We need to absolutely support our industry. We cannot allow the American government and other governments who are taking actions in the international marketplace to destroy an industry that is incredibly valuable and important for BC workers.

29:03You bet we're going to support BC workers, and we are. Just on the BC wine question, we've spoken with the spirits and alcohol lobbyists from the United States, and they're suffering profound damage from the alcohol bands in Canada. It's costing the money and it's costing them jobs just like it is on this side of the country and other sectors. What does this targeted ban on BC wine and other alcohol? What's that going to mean for your industry? The wine growers BC president and CEO Jeff Guinard says the ban sits a dangerous precedent. Presidents isn't necessarily disastrous. Who knows what it means and what your sense of how widespread that damage could be. Well, first of all, there's massive support for the ban on American products in that sector. There's massive support for it. And by the way, if we were to lift it, I don't think British clumsies would be buying very much anyway. As Premier EBS said, as Premier Canua said, I think Canadians know what they're doing in that regard.

30:04But look, we didn't want to ban US products. We didn't ask for these attacks on our country, our sovereignty that have come from the US administration. The fact is that the alcohol ban from British Columbia and from other jurisdictions has been effective. How do we know it's effective? Because we hear the president whining about it to take up the word wine in that sense. And so we know it's been effective. We also know that it has consequences for BC wine growers. And we have to do that by supporting the domestic market. British Columbians, I believe, are doing that by supporting the domestic market. By buying more BC wines and finding other sources for wine in addition to that, not just in British Columbia, but across the country. So it's about diversifying our markets to other countries in the world. We're doing that. I suspect the US share of trade is going to drop below 50 percent from British Columbia soon. And secondly, build our domestic market. We didn't want this battle. This is a rupture of a historic relationship dating back to the 1940s through multiple agreements on military and trade issues with the United States.

31:10They decided to break it capriciously and without sense because it's hurting the US as well, hurting US consumers as well. But to say that that hasn't been an effective response, it has been an effective response. It's got their attention and my encouragement to US interests who are upset about that ban is to engage with their own government because their own government has led this fight not us. Right. So we've covered wine with an H and wine with a cork, Adrian Dix, Minister of Energy Climate Solutions and Acting Minister of Jobs and Economic Growth. Thank you for your time, sir. I think most people like the one with the cork. Thank you, Minister. Take care. The nation is watching Alberta and we know it. I'm Kathleen Petty, host of West of Center. Every week I speak with the people shaping Alberta politics from pipelines to separation to help you understand what's going on here and why it matters. To the entire country, pull up a chair and join me, West of Center. Find us and follow wherever you get your podcasts.

32:13The United States is hit back against Canada's counter-terrorist. It's banning certain Canadian imports and upping the tariffs on others. The ban, which comes into effect at the end of the month, covers most alcoholic drinks. Think beer, wine, cider and whiskey and the list just goes on. Non-alcoholic beer, it's also included. Now some dairy products will also be banned. Those include way and way products. And there are some more specific imports as well with motorcycles and types of molasses on the list. There's also a long list of products that will now be hit with new 50% tariffs starting next week. So here to talk about this US retaliation against Canada's retaliation on the initial provocation which came for some reason is the power of panel. We have a man Alvaro, she is a former Liberal Party communication strategist. And here with me in the studio, we have Tim Powers who has worked as a strategist for conservative parties.

33:15Jordan Leicdenitz is a former NDP strategist. And Sherelle Evelyn is the managing editor of the Hill Times. It's good to see you all as we try to, I don't know which chapter phase movement of the trade retaliation is rimmed. But Amanda, the analysis that's coming out now, almost 24 hours, if you've got the tariff list, is that it's an escalation that's not a massive escalation that kind of nets out. Certain things are removed because it was bad for the Americans. Certain things are added, which brings a whole new pile of casualties into the trade war. How should the government respond to this? Yeah, I mean, I thought that that analysis from your previous guest was right on. I mean, you have to kind of look past the rhetoric and look at the math, taking away from one area, adding to another. It's much more politically motivated. It seems that economically focused. And I think it's a lot of political theater, which obviously we've come to expect from this president. And I think that Canada's response has been quite clever because if Trump's motivation is to say, well, they hit us. So now we're hitting them.

34:22I think Canada's response has been really strategic, not necessarily going after Trump, but going after the Republican candidates that are looking down the pipeline at midterms and strategically hitting in areas that are politically sensitive to them. Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio. So the date that I'm looking at right now is November 3rd and how the matchup between Canada and the US really falls along those political lines. What move is made in order to protect some of those Republican candidates and what move is being made in order to put them in a very difficult position where they're the first to pick up the phone to the White House? Tim, this may not have been sort of the nuclear level of escalation people were worried about, but it is another move from the US, which is not going to let Canada have the final move on any of the trade action. So if there is any kind of a return serve from the Prime Minister and his team, it's likely going to provoke even more action from the United States.

35:24So where should they go? Yeah, but well, first of all, I can't go on said it. I wonder if Jameson Guru is a pretty straight laced guy buttoned up guy just laughed out loud when he called Canada unhinged because he clearly hasn't told his boss that particular reality, which is the real. We're going to play that clip in just a second, but you keep going. But I think where is it going to go? I don't think the Prime Minister is going to step away simply. I mean, I keep listening to Dominic Leblanc's language and I keep watching what he's doing. He and Guru are still talking. Dominic has been very moderated in his language, clearly not wanting to become an irritant to grier or to the president. That's probably very positive. I think you probably have to go back, David, just before the Prime Minister ended talks to have a sense of where there could be a path back, but I don't think the Prime Minister is in any hurry to go there and understanding a little bit more about what William said to you in terms of the.

36:31Response from Canada and then the response from the United States, though there are some sectors and some companies and some people that will be in some really difficult spots. There isn't a massive free fall at the moment in terms of economic peril. So I think that could change quickly. That could change quickly. It's a wild. But unlike the president who seems to react at a moment's notice, the Prime Minister to his credit seems to be logical and thoughtful. I don't think he's going to depart from that. I don't think he should depart from that. I think he has to continue to create pressure in the US as Amanda was saying and that that will begin to help deescalate this. Okay, because Tim was jumping ahead on the elements. Sorry, I'm going to play that James. I'm good for you get to Jordan because this is from an interview with the Financial Times and the US trade representative, James and grew essentially downplayed the tariff escalation between Canada and the USA and use some colorful language for a guy not known for the colorful language from the Trump administration.

37:31So take a listen to how James and Greer characterized this trade war. I mean, Prime Minister Carter used the term war. It's not a word we use, right? We don't we don't talk about it that way for us. It's business, it's economics. And by the way, the tariffs we put in place whenever was 10 days ago, seven days ago, it only covers 5% of imports from Canada. It's like a rounding error. And so to kind of have it whipped up into this giant thing where we're talking about war and economic tax and all these things. It's a little unhinged. Jordan, you know, 5% that's 30 billion dollars, right? Like that's not a rounding error in the Canadian economy. Just what what what what do you make of that? Well, I mean, it's clearly a bit of a revision of what's happening. Of course, it wasn't Canada that was the instigator of talk about using economic force to take over another country. That was that was Donald Trump early on in his presidency. So I think that there's a clearly an attempt here to recast what's happening in the tariff conflict, then if you will, Canada. And with good reason, because tariffs are a bit popular in the US.

38:39Tariffs are a big part of what is sinking Trump's approval rating and Republicans going into the midterms. It's a millstone around their necks. It's making life less affordable for Americans. And you can already see Republicans who are on the ballot this fall, distancing themselves from it. Susan Collins and Maine Republican who's back up for reelection and Maine as an example of that who's called the tariffs against Canada a mistake. You know, certainly Republicans in Kansas were surprised about the president's using a boat bombardier because there are thousands of jobs from bombardier in their communities. And they've had to explain that to their constituents. So these are not popular policies in the United States. And it doesn't really make sense for the Republicans to be underlining that they are in fact aggravating things that are contributing to a cost of living crisis for Americans. And I think that the Canadian government is clearly letting some of that unpopularity of the tariffs do the work of softening up the US ahead of the midterms.

39:40Yes. And, you know, Cheryl, they do not use the word trade war to describe what's happening. They also don't use that describe what's happening in Iran. They sang some boats today. People are getting killed. Just what do you make of that from James and Greer that it's unhinged and overreaction? I mean, that's what he has to do, right? Donald Trump is a businessman and this is what he does. And this is his milieu. So, of course, he's driving the boat. He knows what he's doing and Canada is overreacting. The whole point here is to downplay it. You know, you have the Republicans who are gathering in Texas. And from the early reporting, from the floor of that convention, people aren't overly concerned. Granted, these are party faithful. These are people who are more willing to listen to what it is that Donald Trump has to say and how he casts things and how he frames things. And so far, they're saying, well, you know, it's just a little bit of a spat and we'll work it out and we can figure it out. So, as long as they can keep people in that headspace where they're not overly concerned and they're not connecting the dots to why is life more expensive for me, it can't possibly be because of the actions of the president that I helped elect.

40:56And now that can't be because he needs us to carry the torch to November to get them reelected and all those things. So, I think there is no other way but to say, well, the Canadians are just kind of losing their minds about nothing. This is tiny. And for them, to a degree, it is. Like you said, $30 billion. It's a big deal for the Canadian economy. It's less so for the American economy. Well, and that's just the 50% tariffs. That's not the steel, the aluminum, you know, the auto copper. There's a bunch of things, Amanda, that this is, it just keeps stacking on top of it, right? Which is why you can pull out any single tariff action and say it's not that big a deal but the cumulative effect of them are quite large. And it seems to have broken through in the US, right? Which is what Cheryl was talking about there. So, the Governor Villanois, we had the Senate, the junior senator from Vermont on the show. Yes. People are losing jobs. Businesses are a risk of closing and it's hitting the border states in a way, obviously, because of the nature of the trade flows.

41:56And big names in US politics are now out speaking about it loudly as gas is over four bucks a gallon as well. Yeah, and not just border states. I mean, like the Bombardia example is a good one in Kansas, right? And this is the problem with a deeply integrated economy. It's very difficult to hurt a large Canadian company without finding an American worker standing somewhere in that supply chain, right? Like the consequences each tariff is associated with an actual person on the other side of it, a farmer, a manufacturer. And the people that they're most worried about right now aren't just economic actors, they're voters. They're going to the, you know, they're people who are going to decide the future of these Republican candidates in a few weeks' time. And that's not just, that's not to say that, you know, we get to the midterms, some of these candidates lose their seat and suddenly the tariffs go away. That's not the way it works. But it does apply a political pressure that I don't think that we've seen in the context of this trade conflict so far.

42:59And that's Republican candidates getting on the phone to the White House and saying, the actions that you're taking are hurting us now. That pressure, that's a lever that we haven't had before. So, you know, we haven't pulled the nuclear option. It's not energy on the table. It's not potash on the table. But I think that Carney does have something else at his disposal. And that's these levers, these smaller lever levers that are associated with jobs of Americans, but also the ability to be able to be a little more careful. And that's why you have Americans, but also with the Republican candidates who are looking to be able to, you know, punch that ticket on November 3rd. Do you want to jump in? Yeah. And that idea of needing to directly speak to Americans, that's why you have somebody who has been fairly removed from the conversation in terms of conservative leader, Pierre Pollyov, going to New York. So, you know, press release that you put out today to explain the trip to say that he's going to talk to Americans.

44:00Candid's biggest asset in the present trade dispute is the goodwill of Americans. And it's true because the, there is really nothing that Canada can do within our own borders to make Donald Trump do anything. It has to be pressure from within the United States because so far he has not felt any consequences for his actions. And until that happens until people start pulling money and still people start pulling votes, he's not going to be moved. And there's nothing that Canada can do to move him. Well, look, the billionaire class can finance a million elections in the United States, right? So, I don't know if the cash will run out, but the votes could run out is the key thing. And Tim, we're seeing with the tariff mix as they did this recalibration, as William Pelleram was describing it, adding a bunch of things to it, taking off things like road salt, which they need for the winter. So, cement toilet paper, I guess you can't have Taco Bell doing what is doing, and make toilet paper more expensive. But you know, it tells us that they are seeing consequences from what are sometimes cavalier trade actions by the White House in the example of Kansas.

45:12And now these products need to be shipped. And last time it was ketchup, wasn't it not the whole issue? But it goes to the point that Charella is making and that Amanda is making, you can pick products of irritation that aren't products of economic stagnation, like turning off the gas or turning off the water. Though it was quite interesting last night, David, to see your colleague, Adrian Arsnow interview Ralph Goodell, who's on the Economic Council, the President's Advisor, the Prime Minister's Advisor, he counts on making the point that, you know, everything is still on the table. And it's important to say all of that. The variable though that is still perhaps the most worrisome is just the volatility that seems to be even more pronounced of the President. I mean, there is this personally, if he didn't like Justin Trudeau, and that was obvious, there was a work around on that. Now it's gone from not just liking Justin Trudeau to despising all of the Canadian machinery of government.

46:14And some of the stuff that he's doing now is just, it's outrageous. It's hard to see a guy like that finding a way to back down. So if you're Mark Kerney, how do you do that? I think the Prime Minister has been very smart by going to Europe next week and likely talking about enhancing that trade relationship. No doubt that is going to irritate Donald Trump, but we have to do that. But it's really complex because as it was described to me, dealing with Trump is like dealing with a feudal court. And in the feudal court, it's who's up and who's down at any given moment. And how do you avoid going to the guillotine and become the prized advisor within that court? But Jordan, when you throw the palace intrigue of the Howard Lockings, which is the Jameson Greer versus Suzy Wiles, a side and pull it back from the volatility, kind of struck by something Kirsten Hillman said on the show last night, the former ambassador that at its essence, what the United States is offering Canada,

47:19is the opportunity to sign on to a deal that will kill your auto sector and your steel sector and maybe make other sectors fundamentally unviable for the long term. And it's a total ignorance of the Canadian red lines. And that is one that's at the heart of this, the reindustrialization of one side of the border at the cost of the deindustrialization of the other side of the border. That's a non-starter at this point. Well, that's right. And I thought that interview was really interesting because she was making a point about how in a normal negotiation, there's an understanding of the political red lines of either side and a knowledge that you can't force your trade partner into concessions that would be politically unviable for them. But none of that is on the table right now with Trump. And I think, you know, to Tim's point, Trump understands tariffs not so much as an economic tool, but rather as a tool of power. And it's about using tariffs to exercise power into force submission. And so when they're being used that way, the political red lines of trade partners come nowhere into that calculation because it's about a show of force.

48:27And so I think in a way, you know, the Prime Minister would have had a much more difficult time actually coming back to Canadians with that draft agreement if it is as it has been described, for example, if it was 15% tariffs on auto, which would have effectively decimated the sector. That would have been really politically unacceptable in Ontario. And that would have been very damaging on a permanent basis to the Canadian economy. And so when you look at those realities, both political and economic, it becomes clear that signing an agreement that bakes in those concessions that is also at the same time not an end point is not really an option for the government because we know that Trump would simply revisit. And, you know, it was reported that even they were trying to bake in clauses that would allow them to add tariffs, notwithstanding whatever the agreement was. So when that's the circumstance, politically the pressure on the Prime Minister was actually not to sign because there were concerns from premieres, from industries that what was on the table would be very damaging in a permanent way.

49:33Well, it's interesting, Amanda, when you look at the different restraints that are on the two main leaders here, Donald Trump is a leader who acts without restraint. Obviously, Mark Carney is one that has some restraint on him, has a majority in parliament now. So it's less that, but it is the premieres because at the heart of so many of the issues right now is the booze ban. And while free trade and international trade is purely federal jurisdiction, those those LCBO shelves and other shelves, that's a veto the premieres have on any deal that they normally would not have at a trade negotiation. And that's a real interesting element to this whole thing. For sure, and that's why it was so interesting when when it was first on the table, I don't think any of us really saw the potential consequence of it or the longevity of it. And now we see it happening on both sides and it's become a big chip in this game. I think what's interesting though is that the rules need not apply here. Like Tim was talking about maybe Trump wants to save face and he won't be able to accept whatever.

50:36But he seems to be able to flip flop back and forth between deciding that Canada should be a 51st state and then patting Carney on the back for being a great guy and then wanting Canada to be a 51st state again. There's an interesting thing that happens with him where all of the normal rules of engagement have fallen off. But I think the one thing that we keep going back to is how the voter responds. Where does public opinion land on this? And I think in this case, Carney has public opinion on his side on both sides of the border. We still see American 60% of them oppose terrorists 70% of them want a compromise with Canada. So despite all of the rhetoric that Canada is taking advantage of us and we need to hit back, Carney's message seems to be popular on the American side of the border and on Canada side of the border where Canadians are backing his position and his approach in this seemingly endless train war.

51:37So, Sherrell, just to talk about the American public opinion, because you do bring up the fact that Mr. Polly have will be going to New York for 9-11. I am going to Gander where I know where the crowd is going to be in this train war. What do we expect Mr. Polly have to be able to do there to accomplish there? The announcement says he will have a few meetings with business and industry representatives without specifics. What do we think can come of a move like this? Well, I guess it really all depends on who he's talking to. But at the end of the day, it comes down to, can you bend the right ears? The people who are making the money that you mean New York is Donald Trump's play gun? It's the place where he wants to be respected so badly. And so if you get the people in that city to essentially turn against them and say, hey, everything that this man is doing is making your life more difficult because of what he's doing in Canada, that will have some sway, not all this way, not every way, but it could have some sway. Mr. Polly have tried going this route before to a degree. He went to places like Texas and you went to the Jürgen Podcast and he was trying to speak to that audience.

52:48I can't say that it had a huge rippling effect in terms of getting Canada's message out and making a difference for the White House. But if you keep chipping away at it, as we keep saying, you have to keep chipping away because without that, and if you leave that door open and leaves, let's other members of his caucus do it, like Jamil Giovanni, who has, you know, the year of people who are very high up in the administration. You can't just let that slide. If you want to have to put forward the image that Canadians are working together on this, then you have to be seen to be doing that work. I'm curious about this whole anniversary, right, Tim? And just for people, I'll be away the next two days because I'm going to get the master ceremonies in the 9-11 event, which is a request I was never going to say no to. So, but which means I have to introduce Ambassador Pete Huxstra to this crowd and people worried about what's going to happen there. But you know, Tim, this day, this moment, 25 years ago, was this unconditional support and embrace then followed by a march into Afghanistan for, compare that where things are right now.

53:57Can it, can any of this breakthrough in a day like this in the United States is what I wonder? I don't think so in the US, but maybe it does. I'm sure particularly what's happening in Gander will get the appropriate coverage. What will be fascinating there, talk about Pierre Pauliev in New York, and I think that's a good move by him. You've got Mr. Crutchand there in Gander with you. Mr. Crutchand has known, who was the Prime Minister on 9-11, who went through the whole process of deciding not to go to war and Iraq, but eventually Canadians went to Afghanistan. I doubt Mr. Crutchand in private moments with Ambassador Huxstra as he has in public moments, the Prime Minister, former Prime Minister, will hold back and try and do the best he can to make the case. I mean, the thing about 9-11 is you and I know and everybody here knows, but as Newfoundlanders having watched it, because we all had some connection to that day in Newfoundland and Labrador, it was about people and people helping people. I think Mayor Farewell of Gander has said this very well in asking the people of Gander to be respectful, to take the politics out of door.

55:04And there's a wonderful story. I encourage people to read it in the telegram of St. John's, where the last pilot, the pilot of Plain 38, Indigander, talked about how he arrived, they didn't know what was happening that day, they landed. And he said, our day that was so horrible, it was one of the best days of my life, the next five days, we're like that. And you will have, as you know, people who were there 25 years ago coming back. The claim to what Shurel said earlier, there is more power, not to sound like a new Democrat now, but there's more power. But there's more power in the people to people experience, and we all have been 9-11 or not. And I hope that shines through. I know you will do your best on that day to make sure that's the story, not the politician. No, everyone landed in Gander that day was a stranger and a possible threat and left as a threat. The Plain people, as they were all. Yeah, exactly. The concert is often said, you sound like a new Democrat, but Jordan, I'll let you be the real bonafides to that.

56:06Just, you know, this, I look at these two moments, maybe it's just because I'm going there and I was working in Newfoundland, and it all happened and covered it. But it is striking where the relationship is, one from immediate unconditional support to this hostility and anger, like the way my boys think about the United States as 9-12 year old versus a generation ago is a remarkable thing. So this is a moment where it can punch through or it just, it hardens the callus because of that shared history, I wonder. Well, I think it's always important to remind everybody of the moments where in that people to people relationship has been talked about, like that was the best of us, right? That was the best of us on both sides of the border that day in a moment of true crisis. And Canadians and Americans have historically almost always stood shoulder to shoulder in those moments. And so I think in the current context, it is really important that we remember that because Trump is not going to be around forever.

57:08The conditions that led to Trump though are much deeper and more enduring. And so it's going to be important to hold on to what that relationship could be, what it has been in its best moments historically. As something that we might be able to work back to, if not at a governmental level or a state-to-state level, out of people to people level. That's something that can continue to be a goal, I think, for all of us. I mean, I'm going to give you the last 30 seconds for a quick word. I don't know if I'm worried about the crowd in the Steel Community Center. When the ambassador speaks, I do wonder what former Prime Minister Kretchen might do. Because when you're long retired three majority Prime Minister, you kind of have ten years. You know, just what do you think? You read the morning too. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm not going to tell him what to do. I might get the handshake. But just, what do you expect there, Amanda, by any chance? And he just tends to be as unfiltered as can be too, right? Like, you could say anything.

58:10I will leave the last 20 seconds or whatever I have left with like this tiny little anecdote, obviously like I'm a party of one. But having been in the US last week, I was so stunned by the number of apologies I received from Americans. Like, just an overwhelming, we're always told that we're the ones always apologizing. Almost every American I met who found out that I was from Canada needed to tell me how sorry they were. I think we have to remember that Trump is not the reflection of all Americans. In fact, most Americans do not approve this assault on Canada. They look to us as the allies that we are. Well, the paraphrase Barack Obama don't boo vote. Don't apologize vote. Exactly. This is the thing. It the country is in the shape. And we're all in the shape because of just the way things have gone there. Look forward to next week. Thank you all for the power panel. I'm Andy Ovaro, Cheryl Evelyn, Tim Powers and Jordan Leichnitz. That's it for today. If you liked this episode, please follow the pod and catch our next live show on CBC News Network.

59:21We're on weekdays at 5 p.m. Eastern time. I'm David Cochran, thanks for listening. For more CBC podcasts, go to CBC.ca slash podcasts.