Are We Elbows Up Or Is This More Deception By The Canadian Government To Win Favour With Trump

 The mask of deception is off as The Globe and Mail reports that the American Government is buying stakes in Canadian Critical Mineral Mining.  

Despite official reassurances, questions linger over the long-term strategy underlying these cross-border investments and the precedent they set for future control over Canada’s mineral wealth. Many Canadians are increasingly concerned that regulatory oversight may be insufficient to safeguard Canadian interests, especially given the shifting landscape of global resource competition. As national pressure mounts, the government faces growing calls for transparency and a firmer stance to ensure that Canada’s strategic assets remain under domestic influence, rather than becoming bargaining chips in broader geopolitical negotiations. 

 Ottawa not concerned about U.S. stakes in critical minerals firms, minister says - The Globe and Mail 

At this point, it can be observed that while the Government presents a defence of the Canadian economy, the actual situation appears more complex, with significant implications for Canada's economic sovereignty and the management of its natural resources. 

President Trump stated that the United States does not require Canada and, citing national security concerns, imposed significant tariffs on various sectors of the Canadian economy. Given that Canada retains the right to withdraw or reverse purchases on similar grounds, it is unclear why Prime Minister Carney is permitting this transaction to move forward. 

Natural Resources Minister Tim Hodgson maintains that the American Government’s significant acquisition does not impact national interests, asserting instead that China presents a more substantial concern. This position remains consistent with Carney's adherence to American foreign policy. Nonetheless, some argue that this perspective constitutes "red baiting," noting that China possesses greater supplies of, and access to, these critical minerals. 

Carney has now found himself in a much worse dilemma and probably one of the worst political blunders of his administration.  

It is time that the quiet trade negotiations with the Trump administration become open, transparent, and fully visible to the Canadian public. Instead, we are deluged with news stories that reflect a government that shows a lack of concern or ethical behaviour on behalf of the Canadian people. 

Prime Minister Carney, you cannot say elbows up one day, only to allow a foreign government to begin the process of buying out our resources. It's like robbing Peter to pay Paul, and by doing so, robbing the sovereignty of the very Canadians you swore to protect. 

You're not elbows up at all! In fact, all your banter about Canada not being the 51st State is just a deception because you have already decided to allow them to buy it. 

I wish one day that Carney, Poilievre and the rest of those politicians who disrespect the intelligence of the Canadian people would move onward so we can build a nation, not sell it off to foreign countries behind the backs of Canadians who already are dealing with the Trump effect.  

Carney Just stabbed Canadians and the Employees of The Brampton Stellantis Plant in the back

 The Canadian Press released an article today covering Mark Carney's response to Stellantis' decision to relocate production of its new Jeep line to the United States. This move follows a $15 billion investment and an agreement that included not only this project but also the EV Battery Plant in London. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the Canadian government has provided financial assistance to Chrysler on two separate occasions. To prevent bankruptcy.  

Carney responded unexpectedly to an individual who had a notably assertive approach, often referred to as "Mr. Canada." The company indicated the possibility of introducing a new production line at the Brampton facility for a forthcoming car model; however, they clarified that this development is planned for the future and not expected to occur soon. 

This response does not align with the responsibilities of someone whose role is to protect Canadian citizens and ensure that agreements and contractual commitments made to the Government on behalf of the public are honoured. 

As a kid, I'm often reminded of the cartoon Popeye with a character called Wimpy whose line was, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” This means Carney is proceeding without any mention of a penalty, taking Stellantis at its word. Meanwhile, the Hamburger Stellantis is receiving 15 billion dollars, and like Wimpy, who we assume never paid anyone, will walk away free and clear, taking 5000 direct jobs and numerous spinoff jobs out of the Brampton economy. 

A similar incident occurred previously with Caterpillar Locomotive during Stephen Harper's administration, when the company received substantial government funding but subsequently withdrew its operations. Over the years, other initiatives have also benefited from significant corporate subsidies. 

Now I am sure that Carney will come up with a reason that he did not negotiate this deal. Still, the mere fact, even after a harshly worded letter from one of his cabinet members, he is appearing to back down. Soon, I fear that Canada's investment in this agreement will disappear into the night along with Stellantis.  

Carney mainly focused on his work as a corporate banker and how they would respond rather than prioritizing the protection of Canada's financial and economic interests. Consequently, his actions have generally aligned with developments and initiatives within the corporate banking sector. 

Carney, I hate to say this, but you're a coward! I don't think most Canadians can not conceive 15 billion dollars. I tell you one thing, they can conceive: the loss of their Carers and the small businesses that those employees helped to support.

This is a substantial blow to the community, and the ripple effects will be felt by families, neighbourhoods, and local businesses for years to come. The trust Canadians place in their leaders and institutions is being eroded, not just by broken promises but by the lack of accountability when major corporations benefit from public funds and then abandon their obligations. What message does this send to the next generation of workers and entrepreneurs? It’s hard not to feel disillusioned when those tasked with defending our interests seem more eager to appease big business than to fight for the livelihoods of everyday people. 

It is my view that Don Davies of the NDP, along with the Bloc and the Conservatives, should consider introducing a motion of non-confidence in the Carney Government regarding this matter. There are concerns that Mark Carney has misrepresented himself to Canadians. It is imperative that, if he remains in office, he demonstrates readiness to act and provide leadership that prioritizes the protection and service of Canadians. 

 

 

 

Is anyone out there still thinking that this is all really about trade?

 Is anyone out there still thinking that this is all really about trade? 

 

It is worth considering how many Canadians perceive the current trade war as being fundamentally about trade. Increasingly, it appears that public opinion recognizes other underlying factors, such as the United States' expansionist policies and a strategic interest in rare minerals and precious metals. If policymakers were to critically assess these dynamics, it would become apparent that ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration may be unproductive, given that the administration's priorities appear to diverge from traditional trade objectives. 

Trump seeks energy and critical minerals to support his policy goals, including the implementation of tariffs. These tariffs have the potential to significantly impact the Canadian economy and affect American consumers, which could result in economic challenges for both countries and potentially influence global markets. 

If this situation seems familiar, similar errors have occurred repeatedly. This has contributed to a significant increase in the number of people living in poverty globally, beginning with severe conditions in 1929. 

Donald Trump advocates for an isolationist policy, which focuses on centralizing the economy around the United States' interests, including elements of expansionism. Historically, the British Empire in the 1800s exemplified imperial isolationism, relying significantly on its colonies for essential resources to sustain its dominance. However, as Britain relinquished control to what is now referred to as the Commonwealth of Nations, the power and influence of the former British Empire diminished considerably. 

By engaging in ongoing trade discussions of limited effectiveness, the Canadian Government may be hindered from pursuing opportunities with alternative trading partners. This approach could also divert attention from developing domestic Canadian industries, potentially increasing reliance on large multinational corporations to support the national economy. 

The United States' stance is unlikely to shift, as current events—exemplified by Trump—indicate broader trends expected to persist regardless of changes in administration. A review of the country reveals a significant presence of tent cities and individuals experiencing homelessness and displacement, a challenge also observed in Canada. Canada's alignment with American policy has increasingly reflected a lack of independent decision-making. As a result, Canada faces repercussions for its tendency to follow U.S. foreign policy without critical evaluation or autonomous action. 

 

The United States and Canada are considered relatively small market trading nations, collectively representing approximately 400 million people out of a global population exceeding 7 billion. While President Trump has stated that he does not require Canada, it remains apparent that access to resources is subject to debate. As a result, trade discussions hold limited influence; however, sovereignty concerns persist, and there is speculation that any disagreement could potentially lead to forceful measures.