• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How should the Canadian government handle trade talks with Trump?

The U.S. goods trade deficit with Canada was $11.2 billion in 2016, a 27.7 decrease ($4.3 billion) over 2015. U.S. goods exports to Canada were $266.8 billion, down 4.9 percent ($13.8 billion) from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from Canada were $278.1 billion, down 6.1 percent. Canada was the United States' largest goods export market in 2016.

U.S. exports of services to Canada were an estimated $56.4 billion in 2015 (latest data available) and U.S. imports were $29.0 billion. Sales of services in Canada by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were $134.5 billion in 2014 (latest data available), while sales of services in the United States by majority Canada-owned firms were $89.0 billion.

This citation from the link which I provided above shows that the US is the net beneficiary of US-Canada trade when both Goods and Services are accounted for. The US has an $11.2 billion shortfall in the goods trade but the US has a services trade surplus of between $27.4 Billion US to $45.5 Billion US depending on how you calculate it. This means the US has a net trade surplus of between $16.2 Billion and $34.3 Billion US. Conclusion: the US is eating our lunches but is still not satisfied with its dominant position in our mutual trade. American corporate greed seems to know no bounds.

The situation is made even worse for Canada when one considers the outflows of dividend payments to shareholders in American-owned businesses operating in Canada. And keep in mind that these trade imbalances and capital outflows which Canada bears are being spread over a population about 11% the size of the USA's so the per capita cost of US-Canada trade to Canadians is much more prohibitive than the $11.2 Billion spread over 320 million Americans.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
This citation from the link which I provided above shows that the US is the net beneficiary of US-Canada trade when both Goods and Services are accounted for. The US has an $11.2 billion shortfall in the goods trade but the US has a services trade surplus of between $27.4 Billion US to $45.5 Billion US depending on how you calculate it. This means the US has a net trade surplus of between $16.2 Billion and $34.3 Billion US. Conclusion: the US is eating our lunches but is still not satisfied with its dominant position in our mutual trade. American corporate greed seems to know no bounds.

The situation is made even worse for Canada when one considers the outflows of dividend payments to shareholders in American-owned businesses operating in Canada. And keep in mind that these trade imbalances and capital outflows which Canada bears are being spread over a population about 11% the size of the USA's so the per capita cost of US-Canada trade to Canadians is much more prohibitive than the $11.2 Billion spread over 320 million Americans.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Of course we eat your lunches...

Poutine is hard to resist:)..
 
And no other President wanted favorable trade agreements?

Why would Canada sign a trade deal that had no benefits for them? Canada would rather have no deal, then a bad one and I think a pointless trade war would hurt both sides more then you think, Canada is the biggest foreign trading partner to 35 states and trade with Canada creates about 9 million jobs in the US and Canada provides a lot of cheap power for the US. A trade with Canada would yield nothing but a Pyrrhic victory.

Really trade deals are supposed to benefit both sides, because that's the only way both sides will agree to it, trying to promote a deal that has no benefits to one side, means that side will not agree to it.
 
Last edited:
Why would Canada sign a trade deal that had no benefits for them? Canada would rather have no deal, then a bad one and I think a pointless trade war would hurt both sides more then you think, Canada is the biggest foreign trading partner to 35 states and trade with Canada creates about 9 million jobs in the US and Canada provides a lot of cheap power for the US. A trade with Canada would yield nothing but a Pyrrhic victory.

Really trade deals are supposed to benefit both sides, because that's the only way both sides will agree to it, trying to promote a deal that has no benefits to one side, means that side will not agree to it.

If you (your government) don't like the deal then don't sign it.

Don't blame others for trying to score the best deal possible.
 
If you (your government) don't like the deal then don't sign it.

Don't blame others for trying to score the best deal possible.

Is a trade war the best outcome though? The problem with Trump and his supporters is they want a foreign policy based all on sticks with no carrots and that's not a good way to get other countries to do what you want.

What do you want in regards to Canada, for the US act like a bully and try to use its superior power to screw over Canada? Do you want Canada to be an economic basket case and have that on your border? Or would you rather the US and Canada compromise on deal where both sides give up things to get benefits? Or is a trade deal only good if the US totally wins and Canada totally loses?

Really Canada and the US have trading with each other for decades, is throwing away a 600 billion dollar trade relationship, that creates 9 million jobs in the US worth it, because not everything favors the US perfectly?

Maybe Trump and his supporters should look at trade policy based on rational economic objectives, rather then a sense of resentment and imagined slights.
 
Last edited:
Is a trade war the best outcome though? The problem with Trump and his supporters is they want a foreign policy based all on sticks with no carrots and that's not a good way to get other countries to do what you want.

What do you want in regards to Canada, for the US act like a bully and try to use its superior power to screw over Canada? Do you want Canada to be an economic basket case and have that on your border? Or would you rather the US and Canada compromise on deal where both sides give up things to get benefits? Or is a trade deal only good if the US totally wins and Canada totally loses?

Really Canada and the US have trading with each other for decades, is throwing away a 600 billion dollar trade relationship, that creates 9 million jobs in the US worth it, because not everything favors the US perfectly?

Maybe Trump and his supporters should look at trade policy based on rational economic objectives, rather then a sense of resentment and imagined slights.

You might want to get into the house painting business with the broad brush you wield.
 
Again, I'll ask you to present both sides of the argument before asking anyone else to do your homework.

This BS was going on long before Trump and you know it.

But please......don't let me interfere.

This is a very bogus critique. It is actually very rarely done here, that an OP presents two sides of an argument. Is that a requirement in the rules somewhere?
 
You might want to get into the house painting business with the broad brush you wield.

Don't blame me for what I see, that's the view point I see from Trump and a lot of his supporters. Maybe not every Trump's supporters are that rigid in this view, I am sure some are flexible and willing to support using carrots and sticks in regards to foreign policy. But frankly Trump and a lot of supporters project a foreign policy view of all sticks and no carrots and I just don't think that is effective.
 
Don't blame me for what I see, that's the view point I see from Trump and a lot of his supporters. Maybe not every Trump's supporters are that rigid in this view, I am sure some are flexible and willing to support using carrots and sticks in regards to foreign policy. But frankly Trump and a lot of supporters project a foreign policy view of all sticks and no carrots and I just don't think that is effective.

Really.... How many actual Trumps supporters have you spoken with IRT this topic?
 
If you (your government) don't like the deal then don't sign it.

Don't blame others for trying to score the best deal possible.

It won't be signed, if it's not good for both sides. That's how these things work. That's how it worked when the original agreement was signed, the agreement that Trump says was bad for the US. Can you picture Canadian negotiators victimizing Americans charged with getting a good deal?
Whatever. If no deal is found the situation will revert to before the first Canada-US pact, which might not be a disaster. There'll still be trade, just deals will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. That seems to be how Trump wants it anyway, so so-be-it.
 
Really.... How many actual Trumps supporters have you spoken with IRT this topic?

Fine, if you want to accuse me generalizing Trump supporters on this approach, then perhaps I am doing that and I withdraw the comment. Happy now?

But is that not approach Trump has taken with foreign and trade policies, having them based all on sticks with no carrots? Also if you think I am mischaracterizing Trump supporters, then let me ask you, should the US use sticks and carrots when dealing with other countries or just sticks?

Also you have ignored everything else I have said to on harp one thing, ultimately my point still stands.

Why would Canada agree to a unfair deal? If there is trade war between Canada and the US because Trump wants squeeze every dime out of Canada, how is that good for either party? Do you think Canadians should have jobs and healthy economy or does Canada not get those things, because Canada must lose in trade talks? Care to answer these questions this time?
 
Last edited:
It won't be signed, if it's not good for both sides. That's how these things work. That's how it worked when the original agreement was signed, the agreement that Trump says was bad for the US. Can you picture Canadian negotiators victimizing Americans charged with getting a good deal?
Whatever. If no deal is found the situation will revert to before the first Canada-US pact, which might not be a disaster. There'll still be trade, just deals will have to be made on a case-by-case basis. That seems to be how Trump wants it anyway, so so-be-it.

Agreed. I have never considered Canadians to be rubes....
 
Agreed. I have never considered Canadians to be rubes....

Well, lots are but we (the rubes) don't get to negotiate trade agreements.
Thing is, the professionals on both sides have to satisfy their masters, the posturing blowhards who are always running for their next election. Politicians who second-guess economic and business specialists make me wonder why you'd hire an expert and then ignore their advice.
 
Well, lots are but we (the rubes) don't get to negotiate trade agreements.
Thing is, the professionals on both sides have to satisfy their masters, the posturing blowhards who are always running for their next election. Politicians who second-guess economic and business specialists make me wonder why you'd hire an expert and then ignore their advice.

Well said.
 
Back
Top Bottom