I'm a big fan of the Decouple podcast. Some good info in this one, but the tone felt like a couple of boomers lamenting over the big bad Americans. There was little discussion of the legitimate concerns the US has raised and why Canada won't deal with them.
The US has every right to be concerned about Chinese goods landing in Canada and being labeled Canadian made to avoid Chinese Tarriffs.
It also seems like the Canadian governments indifference to crime, immigration control, Canadian Fentynyl labs, and CCP support are major irritants to the US even if not directly trade related. Canadian citizenss would benefit from actions to improve these areas and also get an improvement in US relations.
I have a slightly different take on where 'disruption' takes us.
It seems increasingly likely that the era of global economic growth has ended with the tightening of global (mostly fossil) energy supplies. This is inevitably being accompanied by the ‘rupturing’ of the international order that depended on constantly rising economic tides (powered by cheap energy), low-risk economic integration and a stable US dollar-based financial and trading system.
The later props are decaying rapidly. Protectionism is one response but, more generally, relocalization of economies in coming decades is inevitable as transportation costs increase, supply chains otherwise erode and trust in old institutions (including CUSMA) and partnerships crumble. The scramble for replacement alliances and relationships is a nostalgic echo of what has been lost and likely won’t fully succeed. Most of the developed world in particular should be getting ready for significantly smaller, much lower-energy economies. (This is a good thing from the perspective of reestablishing climate stability [not likely in the foreseeable future] and maintaining other essential ecological life-support functions.)
Assuming the coming contraction of global economic activity and resurgent international hostilities do not raise international tensions to the point of nuclear conflagration, some regions will still manage a degree of material well-being if not prosperity. Canada is well placed in this respect—if we use the transition period wisely to reduce existing “high-consequence vulnerabilities”, identify easy import replacement opportunities, and invest in domestic supply chains associated with economic necessities (energy, basic tools, manufacturing machinery, housing, clothing, shoes, food production and processing, etc.) this country is better placed than almost any other to relocalize the mainstays without disconnecting from the world.
(Sidebar: I have often wondered what developmental trajectory this country might have assumed had we not been geographically connected to the US.)
By necessity, economic diversity, resilience and a greater self-reliance will replace sheer efficiency as dominant economic values. (The Ricardian efficiency creed always depended on the assumption of global stability, global economic integration, actually.) Optimistically, separatist sentiments will subside. Indeed, Canada should use greater internal interdependence, from the local to inter-regional scales, as an opportunity for establishing a stronger sense of community and mutual self-interest as we adapt to contracted steady-state living.
(Of course, Canada can only prevail as long as the US respect our borders, a condition that may not survive US demand for energy, water, and key minerals.)
Lake America naming dispute refers to Lake Ontario after U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on August 27, 2026, directing federal agencies to rename it amid a trade dispute with Canada. The globalist Mark Carney is a political genius he knows the only thing that can hold Canada together, that is, Alberta and Quebec from succeeding is Trump derangement syndrome. After the Deep State globalists win in the United States midterm elections things will normalize?
Your article provides a good overview of the US Canada trade situation within the context of the last 30 years of globalization, but doesn't really grapple with the rise of geopolitical imperatives motivating the USA and Trump. They are driven by removing dependencies on China.
As an example of how this lens can change the discussion, consider aluminum. It's obviously silly for the US to tariff Canadian Aluminum. However if you look at Canada's exports of aluminum to the US in Trading Economic notice it went from around $7.5B prior to 2017 up to $12.4B in 2022. Curiously, Canada's China imports follows a similar trend from $0.5B to $1.3B. Not the same magnitude, but ... Further if you look at Canada's production of primary aluminum from 2015-2024 on Natural Resources Canada, it's flatlined. So where is Canada getting its aluminum to sell the Americans? Do they need to worry?
The price of aluminium almost doubled in that time period. This is the problem of looking at trade flows on a monetary, rather than volume basis. The changes on a volume basis would be much smaller.
My mistake of assuming the point of the tariffs was transshipping led me astray. However, I dislike irrationality so did a bit more reading and ended up with (perhaps) an alternative explanation.
The US wants to have a larger, secure supply of aluminum. Canada is at limits already. Our grid is pretty stretched already and we have not delivered more primary aluminum for quite awhile. Neither the US nor Canada has sufficient cheap electricity for this.
However the US has idle aluminum smelter capacity which is not competitive at current pricing - hence tariffs. Further, new greenfield will require new power generation, but hitting sufficiently low cost per MWH (~$40?) is tough. Again tariffs help tilt the field to building in the US.
Canada os legally included in the elliguble US defense industrial base (via NTIB and DPA). Is that no longer adequate?
If Canada is secure, how does tarrifing Canada help the combined regional security?
If Canada is no longer considered adequaty secure, then that is primia facia evidence of the chnage in relationship. In that case the US tarrif may be a legitimate answer to the policy question, but that also answers the question of the episode, which boils down to "will America be reliable ahain from the perspective of Canada"...
The fact that US aluminum will not be competitive with any US new large load electricity cost anyway is kind of a side issue there.
Succinct and sensible (well informed, realistic) analysis -- thanks!
I'm a big fan of the Decouple podcast. Some good info in this one, but the tone felt like a couple of boomers lamenting over the big bad Americans. There was little discussion of the legitimate concerns the US has raised and why Canada won't deal with them.
The US has every right to be concerned about Chinese goods landing in Canada and being labeled Canadian made to avoid Chinese Tarriffs.
It also seems like the Canadian governments indifference to crime, immigration control, Canadian Fentynyl labs, and CCP support are major irritants to the US even if not directly trade related. Canadian citizenss would benefit from actions to improve these areas and also get an improvement in US relations.
I have a slightly different take on where 'disruption' takes us.
It seems increasingly likely that the era of global economic growth has ended with the tightening of global (mostly fossil) energy supplies. This is inevitably being accompanied by the ‘rupturing’ of the international order that depended on constantly rising economic tides (powered by cheap energy), low-risk economic integration and a stable US dollar-based financial and trading system.
The later props are decaying rapidly. Protectionism is one response but, more generally, relocalization of economies in coming decades is inevitable as transportation costs increase, supply chains otherwise erode and trust in old institutions (including CUSMA) and partnerships crumble. The scramble for replacement alliances and relationships is a nostalgic echo of what has been lost and likely won’t fully succeed. Most of the developed world in particular should be getting ready for significantly smaller, much lower-energy economies. (This is a good thing from the perspective of reestablishing climate stability [not likely in the foreseeable future] and maintaining other essential ecological life-support functions.)
Assuming the coming contraction of global economic activity and resurgent international hostilities do not raise international tensions to the point of nuclear conflagration, some regions will still manage a degree of material well-being if not prosperity. Canada is well placed in this respect—if we use the transition period wisely to reduce existing “high-consequence vulnerabilities”, identify easy import replacement opportunities, and invest in domestic supply chains associated with economic necessities (energy, basic tools, manufacturing machinery, housing, clothing, shoes, food production and processing, etc.) this country is better placed than almost any other to relocalize the mainstays without disconnecting from the world.
(Sidebar: I have often wondered what developmental trajectory this country might have assumed had we not been geographically connected to the US.)
By necessity, economic diversity, resilience and a greater self-reliance will replace sheer efficiency as dominant economic values. (The Ricardian efficiency creed always depended on the assumption of global stability, global economic integration, actually.) Optimistically, separatist sentiments will subside. Indeed, Canada should use greater internal interdependence, from the local to inter-regional scales, as an opportunity for establishing a stronger sense of community and mutual self-interest as we adapt to contracted steady-state living.
(Of course, Canada can only prevail as long as the US respect our borders, a condition that may not survive US demand for energy, water, and key minerals.)
Lake America naming dispute refers to Lake Ontario after U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order on August 27, 2026, directing federal agencies to rename it amid a trade dispute with Canada. The globalist Mark Carney is a political genius he knows the only thing that can hold Canada together, that is, Alberta and Quebec from succeeding is Trump derangement syndrome. After the Deep State globalists win in the United States midterm elections things will normalize?
Your article provides a good overview of the US Canada trade situation within the context of the last 30 years of globalization, but doesn't really grapple with the rise of geopolitical imperatives motivating the USA and Trump. They are driven by removing dependencies on China.
As an example of how this lens can change the discussion, consider aluminum. It's obviously silly for the US to tariff Canadian Aluminum. However if you look at Canada's exports of aluminum to the US in Trading Economic notice it went from around $7.5B prior to 2017 up to $12.4B in 2022. Curiously, Canada's China imports follows a similar trend from $0.5B to $1.3B. Not the same magnitude, but ... Further if you look at Canada's production of primary aluminum from 2015-2024 on Natural Resources Canada, it's flatlined. So where is Canada getting its aluminum to sell the Americans? Do they need to worry?
The price of aluminium almost doubled in that time period. This is the problem of looking at trade flows on a monetary, rather than volume basis. The changes on a volume basis would be much smaller.
My mistake of assuming the point of the tariffs was transshipping led me astray. However, I dislike irrationality so did a bit more reading and ended up with (perhaps) an alternative explanation.
The US wants to have a larger, secure supply of aluminum. Canada is at limits already. Our grid is pretty stretched already and we have not delivered more primary aluminum for quite awhile. Neither the US nor Canada has sufficient cheap electricity for this.
However the US has idle aluminum smelter capacity which is not competitive at current pricing - hence tariffs. Further, new greenfield will require new power generation, but hitting sufficiently low cost per MWH (~$40?) is tough. Again tariffs help tilt the field to building in the US.
So here is the question.
Is supply from Canada not secure? If not, how so?
Canada os legally included in the elliguble US defense industrial base (via NTIB and DPA). Is that no longer adequate?
If Canada is secure, how does tarrifing Canada help the combined regional security?
If Canada is no longer considered adequaty secure, then that is primia facia evidence of the chnage in relationship. In that case the US tarrif may be a legitimate answer to the policy question, but that also answers the question of the episode, which boils down to "will America be reliable ahain from the perspective of Canada"...
The fact that US aluminum will not be competitive with any US new large load electricity cost anyway is kind of a side issue there.
Thanks for the explanation. It has been bugging me for a while and didn't think of the price angle.