The House: Canada's feud with Trump and the threat of new tariffs
U.S. President Donald Trump isn't playing around — and Canada should brace itself for new tariffs on autos, U.S. Congressman Kevin Cramer warns.
"We have to take him at his word," Cramer, a Republican from North Dakota, told The House on Friday.
Trump simultaneously withdrew his government's approval of the G7 communiqué and floated the idea of slapping 25 per cent tariffs on autos from Canada after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's post-G7 summit news conference, during which the PM repeated his government's message that Canada would not be "pushed around" by the United States.
Canadian retaliatory tariffs in response to U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum come into effect July 1. Senior government officials are quietly drawing up a list of ways for Canada to retaliate if it's hit with even more tariffs by its closest ally.
No matter what threats emerge from Washington D.C., Ralph Goodale, public safety minister and vice-chair of the cabinet committee on U.S.-Canada relations, says Canada's position remains unchanged.
The dollar-for-dollar tariffs looming from Canada will be imposed "more in sorrow than anger," he said.
"We've been very clear that whatever the tactics from the other side, we will stand firm."
Goodale says the federal government will continue to engage in "a very vigorous dialogue" with their U.S. counterparts, but Canada will "not engage in ad hominem rebuttals."
The president is pushing his 'America first' message on the trade file, Cramer said — and he'll sign a deal when it looks like a win for Americans. Whether such a deal would work for the other two NAFTA partners remains unclear.
Trump also has pushed the idea of negotiating bilateral deals instead of the three-party NAFTA, but two European ambassadors to Canada told The House it's important — both in North America and internationally — to continue to fight for larger trade deals.
"We have no choice but to stick to multilateralism," French Ambassador Kareen Rispal told host Chris Hall, acknowledging that Trump clearly has issues with that notion.
German Ambassador Sabine Sparwasser agreed, adding that tariffs and trade wars hurt Americans too.
More than 850,000 German cars are produced in the U.S., with about half of them exported after assembly, according to VDA, Germany's automotive industry association.
"Tariffs would not just hit Germany. They would hit the American workers," Sparwasser said.
Cramer said that while he agrees with the sentiments motivating the tariffs, it's a dangerous game to play.
"We need to be very careful how we use tariffs, particularly with our allies," he said.
Republican Sen. John Hoeven agreed that the tariffs are presenting challenges — especially when it comes to moving forward on NAFTA — but said he's confident there won't be any lasting impact on cross-border relations.
"No one has a stronger bond than the United States and Canada," he said.
In meetings he had with Trump prior to the G7 summit, Hoeven said, there was a sense that NAFTA was on a good path, though he wasn't sure what that deal could look like in its final form.
Leaders from the nations present at the G7 summit expressed their frustrations over the trade disputes to Trump at the meeting.
Though the messages didn't lead to an immediate repeal of the tariffs, the two European ambassadors are both hoping things won't escalate further.
"We are not willing to have a trade war," Rispal said.
However, the ambassadors also acknowledged we could be at a turning point where the U.S. is excluded from some international meetings.
"On some points it's going to be a G6 plus one," Rispal said.
When lines have to be drawn, it could be time for the remaining G7 nations to reinforce cohesion, Sparwasser said.
"When the Atlantic seems to be getting wider I do believe there's a strong merit in having the Europeans together with Japan and Canada come together on the most important issues," he said.
North Korea summit offers no boost in stability, former diplomat says
President Trump's meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un didn't provide anything like a clear path to the rogue state's denuclearization, but it's a good step forward for the entire international community, said a former Canadian diplomat.
Tuesday's meeting between the two leaders ended with an agreement committing North Korea to nuclear disarmament, but offered no language and no timetable indicating when or how that might happen.
"President Trump gave a lot and got little," James Trottier, a diplomat who led assignments in North Korea in 2015 and 2016, told The House.
By giving up a one-on-one meeting with a U.S. president — something the North Koreans have been requesting for a very long time — and asking for nothing in return, the president acknowledged Kim as an equal, he explained.
"That agreement added immeasurably to Mr. Kim's status and legitimacy."
Trump exuded confidence after the summit, declaring on Twitter that he had ended the a nuclear threat from the Korean peninsula.
"There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea. Meeting with Kim Jong-un was an interesting and very positive experience. North Korea has great potential for the future!" A tweet read.
But the statement he and Kim signed was vague and used language recycled from the last 20 years of nuclear promises signed — and subsequently ignored — by North Korea.
Trottier said that is a problem, and a structured deal should have been on the table when Trump and Kim sat down together.
Instead, the two leaders left the meeting without what Trottier calls a clear way to verify denuclearization.
The tone of the meeting was positive — certainly in the wake of North Korea ramping up its missile testing over the past two years, and the insults Trump and Kim exchanged online. And Trottier said the summit at least keeps the lines of communication open between the international community and North Korea.
"The world is a safer place from what it was a year ago," Trottier said.
"But I don't give President Trump credit for having put the world on the brink [and] now pulling it back from the brink."
Looking to the future, Trottier said a continued relationship between the U.S. and North Korea is something that benefits the world, and Canada should encourage it.
He added a Canadian ambassadorial visit to North Korea is also long overdue.
Manitoba ready to act after government rejects key cannabis bill amendment
Manitoba is prepared to go to court to assert its right to ban people from growing cannabis at home.
Provincial Justice Minister Heather Stefanson told The House her government is confident that imposing a zero-plant rule is within the province's jurisdiction — even if the federal government rules Canadians can grow pot in their homes.
"We're confident in our legal position," she told Hall.
"We're erring on the side of public health and safety when we make this decision on home grow and we think it's the responsible approach."
Bill C-45, the government's main piece of cannabis legislation, was sent back to the House of Commons with 46 Senate amendments. One of those amendments was the recommendation that the government allow provinces to determine their own rules for home growing.
While the government accepted most of the amendments, they rejected that key one.
Manitoba, Quebec and Nunavut have all been pushing for the right to govern home growing themselves, something the federal government says won't be an option.
"We are concerned with (the federal) statements," Stefanson said, adding it still won't prevent Manitoba from attempting to regulate the practice themselves.
Manitoba will take the issue to court if the federal government chooses to challenge its jurisdiction, she said, but the provincial government is hoping it won't go that far.
The matter of home growing isn't Manitoba's only problem with the bill, she said, but it's the provincial government's main concern.
"We think they're pushing forward with it too quickly without having the proper safety mechanisms in place."
The House still has to debate and vote on the bill in the coming days. Then C-45 will return to the Senate, where senators will have to decide whether to give up their fight to make their recommendations stick.