Thread

Canada fast-tracks Pacific oil pipeline to reduce US dependence

83 points · 96 comments · geox

simojo · 1790873133 · focus · HN ↗
So many people come and give doomer statements on the reality of the US and Canada becoming increasingly at odds.
As a US citizen, I just want to add that I hope some day we can reestablish a healthy relationship with our neighbors. These articles are saddening.
1. i80and · 1790873861 · focus · HN ↗
  Disclaimer: I'm American
  I don't see how Canada can trust us again without a major cultural and legal shift in the US. The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
  I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
  1. bawolff · 1790874110 · focus · HN ↗
    The real problem is not just that, but that america chose to re-elect him. One time can be dismissed as a fluke or temporary situation. The reelection showed that this will be the status quo moving forward.
    redanddead · 1790874869 · focus · HN ↗
    The real problem is not just that, but that these changes were going to happen regardless, he’s an accelerant
    pstuart · 1790877010 · focus · HN ↗
    > these changes were going to happen regardless
    I'd agree in the context that this wasn't necessarily a case of driven by natural forces of the universe rather than some key events that could have been better addressed to hold them off. And the best way to do that is lots of sunshine and awareness.
    Those key elements being:
    The Powell Memo -- <a href="https://www.inequalitymedia.org/explainers/v/the-powell-memo" rel="nofollow">https://www.inequalitymedia.org/explainers/v/the-powell-memo
    Reagan's embracement of evangelicals (ignoring Barry Goldwater's warning)
    Rush Limbaugh's unfettered demonization industrial complex
    Bill Clinton's sellout of labor to the corporate class -- <a href="https://www.theglobalist.com/bill-clinton-hillary-pivoted-america-politics/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theglobalist.com/bill-clinton-hillary-pivoted-am...
    IMHO politics is two distinct things: control of law and the circus of those who vie to take that power. Everybody focuses on the circus because that's where the media points to and is the most engaging.
    But it's the former that actually matters, and it's boring, slow, and opaque, but literally a matter of life and death to every citizen of the union.
    One final thought: the creation of literal Red vs Blue was a masterclass in division and distraction. It's crazy-making to watch it play out from the sidelines.
    fragmede · 1790894732 · focus · HN ↗
    How is anybody on the sidelines with this? Every single person in the world is affected by it in some way, thanks to globalization. An Iran war wasn't inevitable. (Other than the uncontacted tribes, which are still affected by the effects of global warming.)
    tzs · 1790904511 · focus · HN ↗
    Things were still pretty normal for a long time after all that and pretty stable. No matter what side you were on, when your side lost at least the winner, at least for major offices, was competent.
    Conservative commentator P.J. O'Rourke summed it up nicely in 2016 when as a panelist on NPR's "Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me!" announced
    > I am endorsing Hillary, and all her lies and all her empty promises. It's the second-worst thing that can happen to this country, but she's way behind in second place. She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters.
    That's how it was up to 2016, long after those things you cite had been in effect. Even if you thought some candidate with a chance at winning national office was wrong on everything they were at least wrong within normal parameters.
    Something happened between 2008 and 2016 that enabled the current situation.
    pstuart · 1790915838 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh sure, I was less than happy to have her be my candidate. That said, she actually was one of the most qualified candidates considering her previous experience in the Whitehouse, Senate, and State Department. Add to that her training as a lawyer and the fact that she was likely the smarter one in the marriage.
    For all of that, she did lack Bill's charisma.
    Sure she was a finger in the air politician but there really was no contest as far as fitness for office. But then again, the typical American voter only cares about what's ostensibly immediately in it for them.
    2016 was a populist referendum, and I still think Bernie could have won it (not that he's perfect either).
    bryanlarsen · 1790955868 · focus · HN ↗
    It's not just the president. Trump is at least the 3rd senile president we've had, (there were probably more). The difference is that Biden and Reagan generally appointed competent heads and advisors.
    SketchySeaBeast · 1790876432 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, as a Canadian I was willing to accept that 2016 was some sort of screw-up, but 2024 really sealed the deal. It told me that many Americans desired the constant chaos and classless antagonism.
    Grum9 · 1790903036 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    ted_bunny · 1790937525 · focus · HN ↗
    Nothing classless about this antagonism
  2. palmotea · 1790875020 · focus · HN ↗
    > The fact is that any president can, apparently, unilaterally shred international friendships, and 30%-40% of Americans will cheer it on.
    That's not the problem.
    The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected. If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
    But instead of that we got TINA and Trump.
    > I would love a return to normalcy, but Americans need to make sure, really sure this can't happen again.
    Easy: just repeal democracy. Make elected officials advisors at best, and vest all power in unelected officials that will uphold the status quo.
    rdm_blackhole · 1790877040 · focus · HN ↗
    > The real problem is that the political establishment let things get so out of whack that someone like Trump could enjoy a large amount of support and get elected.
    I agree with you and I wish more people would understand that Trump is only a symptom of the issue.
    Its the same in Europe where everyone is somehow discovering in 2026 that the far-right and far-left parties actually want to do what they say they will do if they get in power.
    Instead of addressing the concerns of the population, all they do is talk about how bad these parties would be and try every which way to contain them except never trying to even understand or fix the issues these people are complaining about.
    It was the same strategy used by Macron in France in 2017 and 2022.
    Step 1: Pretend you care and tinker on the margins but fundamentally don't change anything. Step 2: Paint the opposition on the left and right as monsters that will bring chaos and disorder to the country. Step 3: Present yourself as the only one capable of containing said chaos.
    In one word: TINA
    Except TINA is no longer working and the mainstream parties are being challenged a lot more because people have trusted them for so long and they are no longer interested in waiting for them to actually deliver on what they promised to do years ago.
    So you get Reform in the UK, One Nation in Australia, National Rally in France, the AFD in Germany, Swedish democrats in Sweden and much more....
    The parties in charge could have tried to address the issues that are fueling the rise of the far-right across Europe, they could have listened to the concerns of their citizens even if they did not agree with their ideas.
    Instead, they have let the situation deteriorate and portrayed themselves as the only solution to the problems they never addressed and it backfired spectacularly.
    As Jack Kerouac said: After Me, the Deluge.
    bawolff · 1790886626 · focus · HN ↗
    > If actual issues experienced by Americans were getting addressed in a satisfactory way, none of this would have happened.
    That might be america's problem but its not my problem. It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump. It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
    palmotea · 1790893906 · focus · HN ↗
    > That might be america's problem but its not my problem.
    I was responding to a self-identified American wishing America would return to the prior status quo. It seems like you're in the wrong subthread.
    > It doesn't really matter on the outside what dynamics lead to trump.
    It's worth noting those dynamics aren't unique to the US.
    > It only matters that US foreign policy has taken a turn, the turn seems permanent, and we can no longer trust that our interests are aligned with the new management.
    It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack). Some of the vibes I pick up around those topics come off as entitled, which is is not a good look.
    bawolff · 1790901671 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack)
    yeah, that is how being a hegemon works. There are benefits and drawbacks to that, but lets not pretend like USA didn't get a lot of benefits out of the arrangement.
    In any case, seems like that era is mostly coming to an end.
    1718627440 · 1790927102 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's also worth noting that many countries were probably taking advantage of the US's old management (e.g. most of the rest of NATO severely under-investing in their defense, expecting the US to spend to pick up the slack).
    It's sounds just like you are believing your own propaganda. This behaviour was intended and encouraged by the US. They would still prefer for it to stay that way, even if they are saying otherwise domestically. Look how they try to sabotage the other countries, now that they try to actually uncouple from the US.
  3. krunck · 1790875432 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    quickthrowman · 1790875750 · focus · HN ↗
    The only country in the entire world that has a name that contains the word ‘America’, the United States of America.
    I don’t know why people think they’re clever when they pose this rhetorical question, particularly when someone is stating their nationality. The demonym ‘American’ refers to a citizen of the United States of America.
  4. YZF · 1790875709 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm Canadian. (Full disclosure: an immigrant, like many others here)
    Are 30%-40% of Americans really cheering for shredding of the friendship with Canada? Is that supported by some specific survey or are we just looking at approval ratings or some proxy?
    Isn't this more or less normal for the USA in the broader perspective? Certainly had some very weird presidents in the past? We had things like: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_movement
    I feel like we're just not living in normal times. The lack of normalcy is social media, conspiracy theories, politics. This isn't simply a US-Canada relationship question and "return to normalcy" isn't really just about "how do we ensure a certain level of quality of leadership". I'm not even sure what's normal any more ;)
    <a href="https://leger360.com/in-the-news-canada-us-trade-war-canadians-view-us-enemy/" rel="nofollow">https://leger360.com/in-the-news-canada-us-trade-war-canadia...
    <a href="https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/OMNI_tradewar_aug2026_10018480.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/OMNI_tradewa...
    "Our latest survey finds that 41% of Canadians now consider the United States an enemy country, up 15 points from June 2025. At the same time, 64% say their impression of the United States would change if Donald Trump were no longer president."
    I find this insane. Also the weighting towards 55+, male, Quebec, is interesting. It says something about how humans are easy to influence IMO. Not exactly a surprise I guess looking at humanity as a whole but something I would have hoped we had some immunity to in free western societies.
    db48x · 1790876666 · focus · HN ↗
    No, most Americans would be surprised to learn that Canadians consider the US an enemy.
    bawolff · 1790886795 · focus · HN ↗
    US foreign policy has been pretty consistent since the end of world war 2. Whatever you may think of what is going on, it is a significant departure from traditional us policy.
    TitaRusell · 1790888703 · focus · HN ↗
    However if you like at 19th century history America has always coveted Canada.
    In fact the very foundation of Canada is a response to the US threat.
    bawolff · 1790892304 · focus · HN ↗
    And if you go to the 18th century we were both owned by Britian. idk what the point is of going that far back. The point is that America was pursuing one policy for about 80 years and now is pursuing a different policy. As a result everyone is re-evaluating the relationship in light of this.
    YZF · 1790889975 · focus · HN ↗
    I fact checked with AI as one does these days and at least the AGI supports you with the first Trump admin being what it identifies as a real change in policy since WW-II: "In 2018, the Trump administration used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962—a rarely used Cold War-era law—to declare Canadian steel and aluminum a "national security threat" to the United States. These tariffs were not applied because Canadian steel companies were breaking dumping laws. They were deployed as broad, sweeping coercion to force Canada to the table to renegotiate the entire NAFTA agreement under threat of economic damage."
    So yes. I agree there is an actual change vs. the post WW-II trajectory. At least in the public sphere. I don't know what used to happen behind closed doors. AI here says a lot of power struggles have happened (some specific examples but I'll spare you) but not in public. But argues that the shifting of those into the public sphere is a real change. And I agree with the AI overlords.
  5. neom · 1790875856 · focus · HN ↗
    Even when Trump is gone, there will always be people like Navarro around, telling us to get the hell out of your country: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBw2jXYDPJA" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBw2jXYDPJA
  6. db48x · 1790876406 · focus · HN ↗
    Most don’t see it as Trump’s fault. The trade agreement between the US and Canada allowed both sides to renegotiate the terms every six years. It also allowed both sides to withdraw if those negotiations failed. Trump simply took that option and proposed to renegotiate, which Canada rejected. So Trump took the obvious next step, exactly as anticipated by the treaty itself, and withdrew from it. Nobody should have been surprised by that.
    Most Americans don’t have a problem with the content of Trump’s proposed treaty either. It would have lowered Canada’s tariffs on US dairy products down from 400% to whatever the US charges on Canadian dairy products. It would have allowed US banks to enter the Canadian market just as Canadian banks are allowed to operate in the US. Etc, etc.
    The Canadian government made the soup themselves.
    bryanlarsen · 1790876742 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada's effective tariff on dairy products is 0%. If your strongest complaint about the agreement is a tariff that has never been collected and has no prospects of ever being collected for the life of the agreement...
    db48x · 1790894454 · focus · HN ↗
    I wasn’t complaining about the agreement specifically, merely recounting what those who support Trump see.
    That said, saying that the tariff is never collected is itself misleading. The importers know about the quota, and naturally they avoid going over it. It’s a restraint on trade either way and Trump proposed getting rid of it.
    bryanlarsen · 1790898387 · focus · HN ↗
    They never come anywhere close to the limit so there is no reason for them to try to avoid hitting it.
    db48x · 1790907447 · focus · HN ↗
    Quite frankly that’s even worse, if true. It looks the same to Americans who hear about it, and the Canadian government would have no reason to balk at a trade negotiation over it. They could let themselves be talked down to completely eliminating the tariffs without losing anything. The Canadian response looks more and more irrational the more I hear about the details.
    i80and · 1790876883 · focus · HN ↗
    Come on this is not just about trade disputes, though that side of things is also deeply screwed up.
    Maybe some Americans don't take all the "51st State" and annexation talk that's become a full-on party line seriously, but Canadians are perfectly in their rights and sense to take it seriously and literally.
    db48x · 1790883152 · focus · HN ↗
    I actually disagree with you there. Trump is an open book. Literally, he published a book called “The Art of the Deal” where he described exactly how he negotiates. Anyone who doesn’t know at least the outline of what’s in that book is working at an extreme disadvantage. Go check out a copy from your local library!
    First, he decides what he wants. He does this in advance specifically so that he can avoid agreeing to any deal that gives him less. Then he asks for the moon, knowing that the other party won’t want to give it all up. Instead he wants them to negotiate him down. He will agree to almost any deal that gives him what he wants, but of course hopes that they’ll give him more than that.
    So when Trump says that Canada should join the US he is asking for the moon. He knows that Canada would never actually agree to it. It’s not an unjustifiable position; he can offer arguments about why they should (it simplifies the defense of the continent, it eliminates the expense of maintaining the border, it eliminates the possibility of trade barriers between us, etc, etc), but he expects to be talked down from that position. Obviously Canada should at minimum demand to be brought in as multiple states rather than as one oversized one. Or Canada could just offer to lower tariffs instead. It’s up to them.
    So Canadians who took these statements “seriously and literally” were in fact overreacting.
    i80and · 1790911485 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you're operating in enough bad faith that normally I wouldn't respond, but on behalf of my northern friends, I gotta say
    > Obviously Canada should at minimum demand to be brought in as multiple states rather than as one oversized one. Or Canada could just offer to lower tariffs instead. It’s up to them.
    This is quite something. Trump does not think in any kind of structured axiomatic way at all as of his decaying health in 2026, and the framework you've put this in is so far outside of any coherent diplomatic framework that it's outright an offense.
    No, Canada should not be put in a position where they consider the choice of being multiple U.S. states! What is wrong with you!
    db48x · 1790930680 · focus · HN ↗
    > I think you're operating in enough bad faith that normally I wouldn't respond
    No, I am being completely straight forward about Trump. Go read the book.
    > Trump does not think in any kind of structured axiomatic way at all as of his decaying health in 2026…
    There’s where you make your mistake. There’s no evidence of that at all. Well, he’s physically somewhat frail, but that’s pretty normal at his age.
    > No, Canada should not be put in a position where they consider the choice of being multiple U.S. states! What is wrong with you!
    I think that Canadians are strong enough to rationally discuss any idea. We don’t need to shield them. Besides, apparently Canada is going to join the EU now. And they won’t even get to be a full member; they’re opting to be a junior partner instead. Will they even be allowed to vote on things, or will the EU expect them to meekly adopt whatever new rules they are given?
    If Canada decides instead to team up with the USA then they should insist on becoming as many states as they can get away with. They are 10% of the US population and will therefore have about 10% of the seats in the House, but they should aim to have about 10% of the seats in the Senate as well. 13 new states would probably be a hard sell but you might be able to swing it.
    If it makes you feel better, Trump and the ambassador to Canada probably never actually brought up the idea with the Canadians. They were negotiating in the context of the existing trade agreement so they were just talking about trade. The quip about the “51st state” was merely something Trump said on television.
    kerv · 1790877104 · focus · HN ↗
    Sure - some of what you have said has merit, however Trump has also initiated trade wars with pretty much every other country at the same time. He took advantage of the allowance to renegotiate and then instead of just keeping it within NAFTA, has expanded to a global scale.
    pstuart · 1790877218 · focus · HN ↗
    The whole idea behind tariffs was to replace income taxes with them. The bonus was realizing that he could weaponize it.
    Tariffs today have one real value only: protecting domestic industry. And to do that correctly, it needs to be thoughtful, consistent (legislated rather than by executive order), and coordinated with the industries they are designed to protect.
    Teever · 1790879266 · focus · HN ↗
    This comment is full of misinformation.
    The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
    It was also the US, not Canada, that declined to renew. Canada and Mexico both pushed for extension with the same administration that renegotiated NAFTA into CUSMA only a few years ago. So what changed exactly?
    Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice. As I understand it the treaty doesn't set up "if negotiations fail, then withdraw" mechanism but IANAL.
    The 400% dairy figure is incredbily inflated. The steep tariffs, roughly 200-300% depending on the product, apply only above quota, and in quota imports come into the states without duty. The US also runs its own dairy quotas, and it's incredibly disingenuous to portray Canada as the overbearing protectionist entity in a scenario where Americans twice elected a leader running on an overtly and relatively unprecedented (in modern times anyways) protectionist policy.
    > The Canadian government made the soup themselves.
    On this we are in full agreement. The integration of the Canadian economy into the American one has placed Canada in a precarious place and only further decoupling from America and seeking trading partners abroad will change that.
    <a href="https://cassels.com/insights/cusmsa-still-in-force-notwithstanding-us-decision-to-not-renew/" rel="nofollow">https://cassels.com/insights/cusmsa-still-in-force-notwithst...
    db48x · 1790887665 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US hasn't withdrawn from CUSMA. On July 1st it declined to extend the agreement past 2036, which isn't the same thing. The deal stays in force until 2036 with annual reviews, and no withdrawal notice has been given.
    > Also, the 6 year review is about whether to extend the term. Withdrawal is a separate clause that a nation can use at any time on six months' notice.
    These are good corrections; I was merely oversimplifying. The main point is that what Trump is doing is not some kind of horrible betrayal, he is simply using the terms of the treaty as written. The treaty explicitly specifies how and when either party can renegotiate, decline to renew, and withdraw. You could argue that the treaty ought to have been more permanent than that, but then your beef is not with Trump but with the Canadians who agreed to the treaty as written.
    beloch · 1790886117 · focus · HN ↗
    USMCA/CUSMA has an exit clause. Trump has not exercised that. The treaty is expected to be honoured by both sides during the reevaluation phase. Trump did not do that either. He simply violated the treaty.
    As Carney has said, this President's signature is apparently in pencil. If you violate agreements you yourself signed, don't be surprised if people stop trusting you.
    Finally, if the current trade deal was so awful... Trump negotiated that. One has to ask, what would it take for you to hold your glorious leader accountable for something he did?
  7. swat535 · 1790891195 · focus · HN ↗
    As a Canadian, I love the American people but I feel like making these changes is a matter of national security. It's not really about TRUMP or Democrats or Republicans, it's a bigger directional change in Canada.
    I think this was a much needed wake up call, perhaps a way to shed our naivete.
    For years we have coupled ourselves to United States without thinking twice and it turns out that this was not a good idea.
    I think we are going to see a very different Canada in the next decade or so. We will always maintain trade with United States but operate under another foreign policy.
    I still feel like Canada is vulnerable, hopefully our government accelerates securing the nation on all fronts: military, trade, cyber and borders.
  8. jjav · 1790930740 · focus · HN ↗
    > without a major cultural and legal shift in the US
    The legal shift is the key part. We've now discovered that the US has a very well thought-out separation of powers on paper, but it only exists on paper. There is no enforcement mechanism if a president decides none of that applies to them and they can role-play dictator. That means every future president can also do the same. So there is no way to trust anything the US says or does.
    Unless there is a major constitutional reform soon that assures in absolute terms that no future president can ever overstep their constitutional authority. This is the legal reform necessary for any other country to ever trust the US.
    M95D · 1790932241 · focus · HN ↗
    Wasn't your congress supposed to remove the president in such cases?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.