this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

8706 readers
1492 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

๐Ÿ Meta

๐Ÿ—บ๏ธ Provinces / Territories

๐Ÿ™๏ธ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

๐Ÿ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

๐Ÿ’ป Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

๐Ÿ’ต Finance, Shopping, Sales

๐Ÿ—ฃ๏ธ Politics

๐Ÿ Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
33
Cutting off oil is Canada's nuclear option. What would it mean if it happens? (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 13 hours ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Crude oil tariffs in response to Trump's threats would cause pain on both sides

In Canada's arsenal of possible responses to a Trump tariff, the nuclear option is the threat to withhold, reduce or place export tariffs on Canadian energy.

Already, the mere suggestion of such a tactic has caused a split between the government of Alberta, on one side, and the governments of Canada and all other provinces on the other.

Tariffs on imports from the U.S. have the potential to cause pain to certain industries and regions, but Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has acknowledged that the effect of Canada's import tariffs would be diluted by the size of the U.S. population and economy.

The withholding or tariffing of Canadian resource exports, on the other hand, has the potential to cause real, generalized discomfort to the U.S. โ€” albeit at great cost to Canada as well.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] socialjusticewizard@sh.itjust.works 15 points 13 hours ago (13 children)

I'm fully in favour of cutting off the oil but I think it might be wise to be careful on that one, and first secure some other places to sell it. We do still need to eat. If we're not careful this will turn into a siege.

[โ€“] Perhapsjustsniffit@lemmy.ca 10 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I believe that's the plan. They say economic turmoil but they mean siege.

[โ€“] socialjusticewizard@sh.itjust.works 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

the trouble is that if it's a siege, it goes both ways, and I don't think in our current state we're in a position to win it. That may change as we settle in, Canadians are a stubborn and hardy people.

[โ€“] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

After every war we are in new things get added to the Geneva convention, because of stuff we do, so I say come at us US see what happens.

[โ€“] opi@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (2 children)

ehhh, I'm all in favour of defending Canada and would die doing so, but let's maybe stop with the "come at us" stuff.

The U.S Military would absolutely, without a doubt, completely destroy us in our current state. There is no defending. There's only retreat, right now. They may not be able to hold all of Canada, but they don't want to, probably. They'll settle with Alberta and Ontario.

Let's face it. Canada fucked up by neglecting its military. We could argue the reasons why, but the reality is we're learning a very valuable lesson right now - and it may be too late, too. It'll take decades to build our defense. Let's start now.

We are not the 1.1 million strong of WW2 anymore. We should stop riding the coattails of history and move on.

[โ€“] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

We had a French sub appear in Atlantic Canada showing at least France is ready for Article 4.

[โ€“] opi@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, I don't think the French were here to do a show of force against the U.S. I think they were here to show us the sub because Canada is ready to buy some. Call it advertising. The French aren't here to protect Canada. We're alone in this. The sooner we realize this, the better.

Our best course of action is to put up front the failures of our past decisions and then move on to rectify those gaps. It'll take time and a lot of effort and willingness of Canadians to join in on the new adventure of defending our nation, but it can be done. In that instance, and only that instance, can we then look to our history of our once great military and work to beat it.

[โ€“] CircaV@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago

NATO article 5 if the US attacks or tries to invade Canada. I know for a fact the Netherlands would help Canada, France and the UK eventually too. Then it would be WW3.

[โ€“] overcooked_sap@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 hours ago

Those dumb fucks couldnโ€™t even hold arid lands populated by brown people who didnโ€™t speak English and dressed different. Highly doubtful they could hold anything here without destroying everything and killing civilians indiscriminately.

load more comments (11 replies)