Canada Refuses Last Minute Trade Demands From Trump And Ends Talks

The US once again trying to control our trade relations with everyone else going forward. As a reminder:

In 2018, Canada (in the first years under Justin Trudeau) had, commendably, actually been trying to diversify our trade away from just the US, primarily through pursuit of a trade deal with China, an important and growing market.

The US, in Trump’s first term, actively foreign-interfered and foreign-meddled in Canada to stop that democratic and sovereign Canadian choice: first going out of their way to overturn the long-established NAFTA agreement and explicitly insert an unprecedented clause into CUSMA/USMCA to discourage trade deals with so-called “non-market countries” – a naked euphemism for China: that clause was widely recognized and reported as the “anti-China clause”, clearly aimed at very strongly discouraging a Canadian trade deal with China.

Just 8 weeks later, to further ensure that our government would not – could not – resume its prior sovereign decision to pursue increased trade with China, the US then got Canada to detain and arrest the Huawei CFO on a stop-over on her way to Mexico. Justin Trudeau, eager to please Trump and the US – especially after Trump called him weak and two-faced after the 2018 G7 in Quebec – foolishly and eagerly fell for the trap, and that arrest and her subsequent multi-year detainment destroyed the previously good relations between Canada and China, ensuring that Canada would not be able to significantly diversify its trade from the US to China.

In the subsequent years, the US only continued its campaign to influence the Canadian politicians, media, and public against China. The Uighur oppression narrative was pushed, much of it hinging on just one or two highly questionable reports, including one from ASPI, the “Australian Strategic Policy Institute”. ASPI has recently been revealed to have been funded by USAID, a US State Department organization used to fund NGOs, think tanks, and opposition groups in other countries to influence and interfere in those countries. As a result of those concocted and planted narratives, Canada’s sheep-like parliament even voted to officially condemn China of “genocide” in 2021, further destroying the relations and the path that Canada had been pursuing as a sovereign nation up until mid-2018. (But of course, Parliament has stayed silent about the horrific genocide in Gaza.)

This was then conveniently followed by accusations of “foreign interference”/”foreign meddling”, largely associated with China, leading to Canada holding a much publicized commission, further destroying those ties and pathways. Were these accusations also fed by foreign actors seeking to influence Canada’s democracy? We have yet to hear which foreign actors these reports came from or what evidence they gave. Did they ultimately originate from the US, perhaps by way of their many deeply-integrated channels of influence into Canada? The likes of CSIS, ex-CSIS figures, the Privy Council, and our establishment news media, have continued to actively push foreign-seeded narratives designed to hinder Canadian economic, and thus political, independence. Are they really defending Canadian sovereignty or are they in fact serving as unwitting vectors and vehicles to help weaken and dismantle Canadian sovereignty?

Again, the lesson for Canada is that we absolutely must diversify our trade to end this unhealthy and dangerous over-dependence on the US.

Speaking of reducing our overdependence on the US, why hasn’t the Carney government stepped in to evaluate and stop the RBC/BMO sale of Moneris to a US corporation?

Allowing that sale to go though would mean that 1 in 3 payment transactions in Canada would go through a foreign, US, entity.

That would be greatly increasing, not decreasing, the ways the US can control and coerce Canada.

The Carney government vaunts a “Protecting Privacy and Consumer Data Act”. How is allowing one-in-three Canadian payment transactions to be handled by a foreign company “protecting” the privacy of Canadians or of our consumer data from the ultimate surveillance state next door?

Carney minister Evan Solomon stated that Canada needs to create a sovereign digital economy that is “free from coercion.” Just how is handing over one in three Canadian payment transactions to a foreign company not making Canada far more vulnerable to coercion from the ultimate coercive state next door?

Dozens of academics and experts even wrote an open letter to Carney urging him to “defend Canada’s digital sovereignty”. So will Carney now defend our digital sovereignty and disallow this sell-out of our data and sovereignty? Or will he just let it be sold off?

“We’re now going to have what has been a Canadian data-processing company that has access to everybody’s purchasing habits … available to other governments. [..] Canadians should be concerned because this is their information.”

– The Privacy and Access Council of Canada

Remember, the US M.O. or strategy is to make other countries dependent on them, and then, once that dependence is established, to exploit and abuse that dependence for profit. Pimps do that, too. The phrase “This is the Way” comes to mind – as in, this is the US way, this is the Epstein way.

The number one provenance of foreign influence and interference – and of extortion/coercion – against Canada is hands-down the US. The overt “51st state” rhetoric campaign is only the small visible tip of the long-time massive iceberg of US foreign influence/interference/meddling/coercion against Canada that many people are taught (conditioned) to not worry about.

The Moneris sale would only increase their overwhelming coercive leverage over us.

Feral Finster: ‘Not sure how Canada is going to develop this military deterrent’

Easily. Canada’s CANDU reactors produce plutonium — indeed, are excellent plutonium producers in physics terms. Canada doesn’t separate it and that plutonium remains locked in spent fuel under IAEA safeguards. But that could change.

And plutonium is what you want. Nobody’s built a serious nuclear weapon from enriched uranium since Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima eighty years ago, and the US only did that to use up what they had at Los Alamos. Plutonium is what Trinity and the Fat Man devices both used, and what modern thermonuclear and boosted fission weapons use. Period.

@ Mark: besides requiring a political will that Canada doesn’t have, you also need a delivery method and a way to keep your plans secret until your weapons are ready.

Ian,

“I’m particularly intrigued by America wanting an end to Quebec’s language sign laws: what the hell does that have to do with the US?”

i am not. the american military for the most part, does not speak french. roadsigns are like maps. ask the russians why they made sure, travel by foreigners is not so easy in russia.

think, Quebec, Baffin island, Greenland.

that gives control to the free trade empire, control of the arctic route.

that would only leave the west coast available to canada, stuck between alaska and the lower 48 states, easily blockaded.

you would only have access to the sea through arctic summers via the yukon river, the delta in the northwest territories, and hudson bay. then you would have to try to run the alaskan coast, or the U.S. controlled baffin, greenland straights, your check mated.

what you are watching right now, the Neo-liberals running canada, fell into that free trade trap, with no way out.

just like what’s happening in japan today, it was inevitable. greed ruled for a while, not its fear. the likes of bill clinton, tony blair, Schroeder of germany, roger of new zealand, they offered the dupes greed, now the dupes live in fear.
—————-
Lenin believed that the ruling class, when faced with threats to their power, often turns against their own members to maintain control and suppress dissent. This reflects his view on the nature of class struggle and the lengths to which the elite will go to protect their interests.
history.hanover.edu davidmhart.com
———
get nukes quickly. your gonna need them. victoria island will soon be in the sites of the free traders, so do what north korea did, arm it to the teeth.

@Ian, no worries, the last line of your post made me think of this:

We have the Rocky Mountains and the Coast Mountains, but the appropriately named “Canadian Shield” – that we all learned about in high school, if not even elementary school – also comes to mind.

https://www.reddit.com/r/geology/comments/ynfcgq/a_map_of_canada_featuring_the_canadian_shield/

https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/shield

Under constant threat from the ever-voracious US predator, for its self-defense and self-preservation, Iran wisely built underground networks under granite mountains, and the Empire’s massive bombings have not been able to get through.

From Indi in Sri Lanka:

“The road less travelled by was missiles. Iran pursued unmanned missiles and drones while everybody else purchased fighter jets like clones. That road led underground, where missiles could easily be stored, while everybody else stored their expensive assets above ground, easily exposed. Now Iran can fire straight into the eye of the cyclops, who searches blindly for people they still consider nobodies. Iran took the road less travelled by, and this has made all the difference.”

https://indi.ca/how-iran-took-the-road-less-travelled-by/

“Besides its natural advantages, Iran has built missile cities under the mountains. Before the Empire even gets to the concrete, they have to get through the mountain. The Great Satan cannot even nuke their way into these missile cities. The best they can do is dust-up the exits, which Iran can sweep clean.

Here are some illustrations of the tunnel cities which are all made up.”

https://indi.ca/irans-greatest-hits/

Carney is announcing major national infrastructure projects – if he’s looking for another project, perhaps Canada could borrow a page in self-defense and sovereignty from Iran. Ditch the boondogle F-35’s (which can’t even be equipped with functioning radar anymore anyway, for lack of access to gallium – so can only be used for prohibitvely expensive flight training, AND have a de facto US kill-switch) and look to smarter, proven ways to defend Canada.

I am quite certain this purported list of demands is enemy IO. There’s a version floating around with an attribution to a Global news story that never existed. Like all good IO, there’s a fair bit in here that is true – but there’s a bunch that goes well beyond what we would ever have discussed (e.g., a veto over infrastructure partnerships).

This is just a precursor to the IO battles to come. I would bet a significant part of my net worth that there is or soon will be a Presidential finding for a Title 50 covert influence operation to weaken support for the Canadian government and its position. The touch points of the campaign will be Carney as leader and the various regional separatist movements. Non-US IO will be attempting to magnify any differences to make coming to a rational agreement politically impossible for both sides – they will adroitly exploit any effective seams the US manages to surface and amplify beyond anything the US would want (the phrase “catastrophic success” comes again to mind).

The best form of deterrence right now is to not be baited into identity-based partisan politics or anything that seeks to pit one province against another.

@tc: stow the wacky conspiracy theories.
If Trump wanted to help Putin, he need only cut of intel sharing, satellite recon and targeting.

All can be done at the stroke of a pen and don’t cost a cent.

It does make the seizure of Venezuelan oil assets make a tiny bit more sense. Heavy crude for Paul Singers newly acquired refineries, especially geared for the Heavy.

Feral Finster: ‘…you also need a delivery method’.

Trucks. Planes. SUVs. Boats across the the Great Lakes system (Superior, Huron, Erie, Ontario) and major connecting rivers (St. Lawrence, Niagara, Detroit, St. Clair), plus smaller eastern rivers like the St. Croix.

It’s a 5,525‑mile border between the US and Canada.

Granted, one big technical reason for plutonium’s prominence in nuclear weapons development was that in the 1950s it enabled thermonuclear and boosted fission designs , which in turn enabled warheads miniaturized enough to fit on top of an ICBM by 1958-59. All that demanded the development of enormous expertise.

But basic atomic bombs are relatively simple and no state that seriously set out to develop them ever failed. Even the South Africans built five of those and you can deliver them on a plane or a truck.

Feral Finster: “(and also) requiring a political will that Canada doesn’t have.”

That’s almost certainly the way Trump and his gang would bet. They’ve bet on a lot of things that haven’t worked out like they assumed.

Feral Finster: “you also need … a way to keep your plans secret until your weapons are ready.

South Africa built six complete gun‑type nuclear weapons (with a seventh in assembly) entirely secretly and the world was unaware of it till then-President de Klerk revealed it in 1993.
https://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/South_Africa_report_release_29Sept2016_Final.pdf

I think you can be certain that the Americans have and will continue to invest many millions of US$ into disaffected politicians and influencers’ pockets to sway Albertans minds before their referendum.

So I enjoy chatting with various AI on various issues: geopolitics, AI, engineering, science, cultures, etc.

Here are some highlights from my chat with Google Gemini on the US-Canada trade war:

– – – – – – – – – –

Q: Realistically, how long will it take Canada to ‘break away’ from US economically so that the US will lose most of its leverages over Canada? For reference: China accomplished it in 4-6 years.

Gemini: Realistically, it will take Canada at least 10 to 15 years to fundamentally break away from U.S. economic dominance and strip Washington of its asymmetric leverage.

The comparison to China highlights a crucial difference in scale, structure, and starting points: China never had to “break away” from a position of total structural integration; it simply built its own massive, independent domestic market from the ground up while controlling all manufacturing. Canada, by contrast, must completely untangle an economy that has been hardwired into the United States for over a century.

[ yada, yada, yada… ]

– – – – – – – – – –

Q: Let say, China is willing to work with Canada to diversify from the US *but* also remains to be wary of Canada due to Canada’s membership in the Five Eyes, will that shorten the timeline?

Gemini: Immediate, transactional economic backing from China would cut Canada’s decoupling timeline in half, reducing a 10-to-15-year process down to just 5 to 10 years.

By acting as a massive, guaranteed buyer of stranded Canadian goods and injecting aggressive capital into alternative infrastructure, Beijing can radically accelerate the transition. However, because China remains wary of Canada’s Five Eyes status, this help will be strictly limited to tangible, transactional infrastructure and commerce, leaving Canada to handle its own high-tech and military independence.

This accelerated timeline breaks down across the core phases of the economic break-away:

🚢 1. Infrastructure Re-Engineering: Cut from 4 Years to 2 Years

The slowest part of diversification is physically building new trade routes. China can accelerate this phase faster than any other nation:

• The Capital Injection: While China may not send workers to Canadian soil due to Five Eyes security friction, Chinese state enterprises can issue massive, long-term prepayment contracts for Canadian oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and lithium.

• Rapid Building: This immediate wave of non-U.S. cash allows Ottawa to double construction crews, instantly finishing West Coast pipeline expansions, Pacific deep-water ports, and the C$11 billion Arctic icebreaker fleet in record time. Within 24 months, Canada’s physical dependency on American pipelines and rails is drastically reduced.

⚙️ 2. Supply Chain Decoupling: Cut from 8 Years to 4 Years

Canada’s manufacturing sector is deeply entangled with the U.S. Midwest. China can provide the alternative industrial gravity needed to pull Canada away:

• The Commodity Off-Ramp: Instead of Canadian auto-parts factories slowly retooling over a decade, China can step in as a massive importer of raw Canadian steel, aluminum, and unrefined minerals.

• Mid-Stage Processing: China possesses the world’s largest refining capacity. By absorbing Canada’s raw materials directly, Beijing allows Canadian industries to survive the immediate loss of the American market without having to wait years to build their own domestic high-tech processing plants.

🛑 Where the Timeline Grinds to a Halt: The 10-Year Security Wall

While the economic and physical decoupling drops to a 5-year sprint, the financial and intelligence decoupling will still take the full 10 years due to China’s deep distrust of the Five Eyes:

• The Security Ceiling: Because Canada remains plugged into the NSA and British intelligence networks, China will strictly refuse to deeply integrate its sensitive technology, telecommunications, or central banking systems with Ottawa.

• Strictly “Low-Tech” Trade: Beijing will happily process a trillion dollars in Canadian oil and wheat via the parallel CIPS payment network, but they will not share proprietary AI software, microchip designs, or military-grade tech with a nation that could flip back to the U.S. in the next election cycle.

The 5-to-10-Year Result

By combining its raw resource wealth with China’s insatiable economic appetite, Canada can successfully achieve an initial 50 American / 50 Chinese trade split within 5 to 7 years, completely shattering Washington’s immediate tariff leverage. However, Canada will spend the remaining years of the decade in a geopolitical gray zone — economically fed by Asia and Europe, but defensively locked into the Western alliance, operating as the ultimate high-wire balancing act of the modern world.

– – – – – – – – – –

Q: But, will China even be willing to work with Canada, given their history and mistrust?

Gemini: Yes, China is not only willing to work with Canada, but it is actively doing so right now because the geopolitical benefits to Beijing far outweigh its historic mistrust. (https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/china-media-hails-canadas-chinese-style-tariff-retaliation)

In fact, behind the scenes, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Chinese President Xi Jinping have spent most of 2026 executing a dramatic, calculated thaw in relations specifically designed to counter the Trump administration’s trade pressure. To Beijing, helping Canada is the ultimate opportunity to drive a wedge into the Western alliance and prove that Washington’s economic warfare can be defeated. (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/24/business/dealbook/canada-carney-tariffs-trump.html)

China’s willingness to step in is driven by a strategy of “Calculated Realism,” balancing economic opportunity with careful security guardrails. (https://www.eurasiareview.com/25082026-china-canada-relations-at-a-strategic-crossroads-xi-jinpings-expected-visit-albertas-referendum-and-implications-for-the-united-states-analysis/)

[ yada, yada, yada… ]

@Mark Pontin:

This assumes that the Canadian security apparatus is not shot through with American agents, and that the Americans would not bother to look over the borders.

Moreover, South African nuclear weapons were an open secret for years (somewhat like Israeli right now).

Keep up the wishful thinking!

@Mark Pontin:

You’re going to deliver a nuclear weapon on a speed boat. Go on, pull the other one.

The South African devices were HEU fuelled. Most covert attempts at developing a nuclear capability over the past 20 – 30 years have taken the uranium pathway. If you’re going to have an overt program (particularly if one wants a range of yields), Pu makes sense, but as Deir al-Azor teaches, it involves a much more visible signature.

The challenge with nuclear weapons is that we would not be able to keep the program covert. As soon as it went overt, we would switch to a different largely unsupportable category (even among countries that would otherwise be allies) and the program would be up to its ass in 1st Ranger Battalion – on their terms – which would not be fun.

The strategy should be nuclear capability, including the complete fuel cycle, yes. Nuclear weapons program, no. I don’t need special weapons to be an existential threat, just that simple. If you thought Afghans were fun, you’ll love having opponents that pass for native operating at will in the rear area who know how every single speck of significant infrastructure works.

Carney suspended trade talks to influence the U.S. midterm elections. Carney takes his marching orders from the DNC. He’s betting the entire farm on the Democrats taking control of Congress. – Julian Assange

https://x.com/ImJulianAssange/status/2091052339251806581

The DNC Have set up the midterm election campaigns headquarters in the Canadian Prime Ministers office.

@Feral Finster I REALLY don’t think you understood what I was saying. So, first of all, nowhere did I say anything about prospects for a Ukrainian insurgency. What I said was that drones had allowed Ukraine to hold defensive lines for a long time against a seriously superior foe. Therefore, drones might allow Canada to do the same, especially since when it comes to ground invasion of a large territory, the US is missing several capabilities that Russia has.

However, the Canadian armed forces are small in number of troops, so even with drones they probably could not hold defensive lines in a big place like Canada. Which brings me to the next thing: That would mean the Canadians would have to fight in insurgency STYLE. That doesn’t mean an actual insurgency, in the sense of self-organized civilians trying to start something. It means the Canadian armed forces not trying to hold defensive lines but instead fighting from hiding so they don’t get killed. A nation’s whole army fighting in guerilla style is not the same as random kids trying to put something together. But with a lot of drones, such a fighting style could end up effectively holding territory just by making it very difficult for the invaders to move around and get supplies. Drones can at this point create kill zones where no vehicle can exist for long. One reason the Russian advance is slow is quite simply that at the front, they have to WALK, and it takes a long time to get anywhere, especially while trying not to be seen. That problem would be worse in Canada; it would become very hard just to GET to the whole place even if nobody was technically standing in the way.

As to whether it’s a young man’s game . . . somewhat, but the current tech really changes that. Again, if we want to fight a US invasion, we need to start now purchasing and manufacturing LOTS of drones. Wrangling drones doesn’t need young men. Going back a half generation of combat style, neither does placing roadside bombs. I’m 60, I could do that stuff.

At any rate, I think it is extremely unlikely that the United States could in the end succeed in occupying Canada. I don’t think they could beat a drone-heavy, insurgency style defence. But also, one big key difference between attacking Canada and their wars against everyone else is, Canada gets to attack back. Canadians could easily infiltrate the US to kill and destroy, the border is many thousands of kilometres long and Canadians look just like Americans. Americans aren’t used to enemies that can hurt them back.

Some questions to ask…and some further questions to ask.

1) Canada can cut US electricity easily?

‘Canada can physically cut off or heavily tax its electricity exports to the U.S., but doing so is a drastic measure that carries significant economic risks for both nations.

While individual Canadian provinces like Ontario and New Brunswick have direct control over their cross-border transmission lines, a total cutoff would disrupt regional power grids…’

2) ‘While individual Canadian provinces like Ontario and New Brunswick have direct control over their cross-border transmission lines…’

So they could conceivably do this rather easily?

What would it entail?

What percentage are these two provinces’ electric generation as compared to the entirety of Canadian electric going to the US?

‘Canadian provinces can execute a cutoff relatively easily from a technical standpoint, but the legal and legislative process creates a major bottleneck…

Mechanically, it takes a few keystrokes.

Provincial governments hold ownership or strict oversight of the utilities and the provincial grid regulators—such as Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). A directive would be issued to these operators to throttle or completely zero out power flow across the 31 high-voltage international transmission lines connecting to the U.S….

The Legislative Snag (The Hard Part):

In Ontario, Premier Doug Ford cannot just shut down the grid by executive decree.

To legally impose a permanent surcharge or a full export ban, the provincial government must pass emergency legislation The Narwhal.

Because THE ONTARIO LEGISLATURE IS ON AN EXTENDED SUMMER BREAK UNTIL OCTOBER 27 (lmao!!!!!!!!!!!), Ford would either have to officially recall politicians early to pass a bill or find an unprecedented legal loophole to expedite it…

Export Share: Ontario & New Brunswick vs. Total Canada Exports

While Ontario dominates headlines because of Premier Ford’s vocal opposition to U.S. tariffs, it and New Brunswick actually make up a minority share of total Canadian power sent to the United States.

The vast majority of Canada’s electricity exports are driven by Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba.

While Ontario’s 10-15% slice seems small on a national scale, it is highly targeted. Throttling it specifically hits Michigan and New York.

Meanwhile, New Brunswick’s tiny 2% slice is the only thing keeping the lights on for 58,000 Americans in northern Maine who are entirely isolated from the rest of the domestic U.S. grid.’

3) That is upstate NY, not NYC and the tri-state area which are on the US grid?

Can the US connect these areas to its grid easily?

i mean, capacity may be a problem but assuming it isn’t is the techncial capability even remotely possible?

‘Technically, connecting these isolated pockets to the broader U.S. grid is exceptionally difficult and takes years…

Upstate NY (The Target):

Upstate New York is heavily plugged into Ontario’s grid.

If Ontario Premier Doug Ford cuts power, Upstate manufacturing hubs and cities are the ones that immediately lose juice and face spiking bills.

NYC and the Tri-State Area (The Exception):

New York City and the Tri-State area are mostly powered by local fossil fuel plants, nuclear, and the broader Mid-Atlantic/U.S. grid.

However, NYC is connected to Canada via the newly completed Champlain Hudson Power Express (CHPE). But that line brings power from Quebec (Hydro-Québec), not Ontario.

Can Upstate just buy power from NYC/U.S. instead?

No, because of “Transmission Congestion…

The Northern Maine Nightmare (NMISA)….

Why can’t the U.S. just link Northern Maine to Southern Maine?…

The Verdict:

If New Brunswick actually flipped the switch tomorrow, the U.S. could not “reroute” power to Northern Maine.

The U.S. military or FEMA would literally have to roll in massive industrial diesel generators to keep towns like Presque Isle and Caribou from freezing or losing power.’

4) So southern Maine is actually connected to the US grid?

it’s just northern maine and parts of michigan and the pacific northwest that would be hurt by these Canadian actions were they to happen?

‘Yes, Southern Maine is fully connected to the domestic U.S. grid (specifically the New England network), but your assumption that a cutoff would only hurt isolated pockets like Northern Maine, Michigan, and the Pacific Northwest is not entirely correct.

Even in fully connected regions, a Canadian cutoff would trigger immediate financial pain, and in a worst-case scenario, widespread grid instability.The impact is divided into two distinct types of “hurt”: physical blackouts and economic shockwave.

The Regions Facing Physical Blackouts (The Grid “Islands”)

As noted, these are the areas that are physically stranded from the rest of the U.S. grid infrastructure. If Canada flips the switch, they cannot simply pull power from their American neighbors because the physical wires do not exist.

Northern & Eastern Maine, Parts of the Pacific Northwest, Upper Midwest (Pockets of MN & ND)…

The Regions Facing Economic Shockwaves (The Connected States)

This is where the distinction lies. Southern Maine, New York City, and Michigan are heavily connected to the U.S. grid. If Canada cuts the power, these areas will not go dark, but their residents will see their electricity bills skyrocket.

The “Hidden” Danger: Grid Instability….’

5) is this all one-way? Or does Canada depend on the US grid for some energy?

Are they interliniked in a way?

‘No, it is definitely not a one-way street. Canada and the United States share a deeply interlinked, reciprocal power grid that relies on mutual dependence.

While Canada behaves as a net exporter of electricity, the U.S. frequently loops massive amounts of power back north…

If Canada were to completely sever ties, parts of its own domestic grid would face immediate instability, high costs, and potential blackouts.

Canada sends over its cheap, excess baseload power (mainly hydro) when its reservoirs are full EIA. However, when Canada experiences intense winter cold snaps, localized droughts that drain hydro reservoirs, or routine power plant maintenance, it buys massive amounts of American electricity to keep its own lights on EIA.

Physical Interlocking: “The Loop Flow” Problem…

The Ontario-Michigan Loop…

The Lake Erie Hurdle…

Shared Brains: Joint Reliability Standards

The grid is governed as a single machine by an international regulatory framework WUNC.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) dictates the exact operating protocols for utilities in both nations.

This ensures that operators in New York, New England, Ontario, and Quebec constantly talk to each other to balance grid frequencies EIA.

The two countries are bound by mutual electrical dependence.

While Canada holds the upper hand as the primary seller, its grid is physically woven into the U.S. framework. Any attempt to cleanly “cut” the wire would cause immediate technical and financial backfire inside Canadian borders.’

6) So in the extraordinarily unlikely event that the vacationing Canadian politicos were to come back to ‘work’ and implement these measures, Canada itself would experience massive economic pain as well?

‘Yes, Canada would absolutely feel severe economic and structural pain.

A total electricity cutoff is a classic example of a “mutually assured destruction” economic policy.

If Ontario and New Brunswick lawmakers were to cut off the U.S., the financial and physical blowback on Canada would be swift and intense.

Massive Financial Losses for Canadian Taxpayers

In Canada, major power utilities are Crown Corporations, meaning they are owned by the provincial governments.Who takes the hit:

When Ontario Power Generation or Hydro-Québec loses billions in export revenue, that deficit lands directly on Canadian taxpayers.

Physical Waste: “Spilling” Clean Energy

Unlike gas or coal, you cannot easily “store” large amounts of excess electricity.

The Dilemma: Canada’s power grid is structured around generating massive, continuous baseload power (like nuclear in Ontario and hydro in Quebec).

The Reality: If Canada suddenly stops sending its excess power to Michigan and New York, it has nowhere else to send it. Utilities would be forced to literally waste energy.

For hydro dams, this means “spilling” water over the dams without running it through turbines, generating zero revenue from a valuable natural resource.

For nuclear plants, it means complex and expensive throttling operations.

The Target:

Canada’s economy is profoundly dependent on exporting cars, auto parts, steel, and aluminum to the U.S.

The Pain:

If Ontario cuts off Michigan’s power, the U.S. could easily retaliate by completely shutting down cross-border automotive supply chains.

Because Ontario’s manufacturing sector relies entirely on the smooth, tariff-free flow of goods into the U.S. Midwest, a broader economic freeze would spark widespread factory closures and mass layoffs across Canada.

Conclusion:

Canadian leaders recognize that cutting the power is a high-stakes, desperate gamble.

They would not be doing it because it is “easy” or painless; they would be doing it as a highly damaging act of economic retaliation, fully aware that Canada’s own citizens and budgets would suffer alongside American consumers.’

Here is a Kyle Kulinski Secular Talk video about Canadian response to Jabba the Trump’s latest round of anti-Canada tariffs. Kulinski runs clips ( and text) from various Canadian power players indicating that the CanadaGov is acting in a strategically targeted manner. The official Canadian reciprocal tariffs will be designed to selectively target the businesses and economies of the Maganazi Republican Red States which supported Trump and Republicans. I assume that is meant to help the residents of the Maganazi Republican states to re-think their support of the KCR Occupation Regime ( which they consider THEIR regime aGAINST “Occupied Blue America”.

If these targetted reciprocal tariffs can torture enough people of the KCR states into voting Democrat out of fear for their own survival, then that would be a good introductory outcome. Then the Democratic officewinners would have to decide whether they are human enough to destroy America’s internal enemies, or still so subhuman that they still want to “reach across the aisle” to America’s internal enemies.

If that is what the Democrats do with their victory, if they have one, then I hope Canada ( and others) can start tariffing and boycotting the KCR Red States so overwhelmingly and totally that those states are so weakened and destroyed that the Blue States can liberate ourselves from Red State Occupation altogether.

‘YOU’RE DONE’: Canada’s BRUTAL REACTION To Trump Trade War SHOCKS ALL!! | The Kyle Kulinski Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c78-S2sXi9s