Canadians are torn about whether to put their elbows up or down in U.S. trade war: poll
Article content
The Leger/Postmedia poll suggests that 45 per cent of Canadians still believe Canada's position vis-à-vis U.S. President Donald Trump should be 'elbows up.' That means that Canada should impose counter-tariffs on all new U.S. border levies, even if it risks further retaliation from the Trump administration.
Article content
Article content
Article content
But on the other hand, 41 per cent of respondents said they'd prefer Canada's response be 'measured' and focus more on getting a new trade deal even if it includes some tariffs on Canadian goods.
Article content
Article content
The split among Canadians puts Prime Minister Mark Carney in somewhat of an 'awkward position' as he must navigate conflicting views on how to deal with an erratic and unpredictable Trump administration, said Leger executive vice-president Andrew Enns.
Article content
On the one hand are those who still believe in the 'eye for an eye' approach with the U.S., and on the other hand is the growing number of Canadians who favour a slightly more conciliatory and measured approach.
Article content
'I think there's been a bit of a tempering, a bit of a diminishment of the 'elbows up' aggressive approach. It's still very present, and you know, not to be ignored,' Enns said.
Article content
'But I certainly would say that there's a stronger sort of view now starting to show up in Canadian opinion that says, 'Well hold on here, maybe we ought to think this through, let's not be hasty.'
Article content
Article content
The new survey is in stark contrast to polling just six months ago, when a substantial 73 per cent of respondents told Leger they supported dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs against any U.S. border levy on Canadian goods.
Article content
Article content
For Enns, it means many Canadians — and particularly Gen Xers and Boomers over 55 years old who expressed particularly fierce Canadian patriotism earlier this year — are having a moment of 'sober second thought' as the trade war with the U.S. drags on.
Article content
The shift in public sentiment could also be a reflection of the change in tone from Carney himself. During the Liberal leadership race in February, Carney said he supported suggestions of dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs.
Article content
But since becoming prime minister, he has not retaliated to any of Trump's new tariffs on such key Canadian sectors as steel, aluminum and automobiles. In fact, he suggested last week that Canada may remove some tariffs on U.S. imports if it's beneficial to Canadian industry.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Takeaways from the Trump-Putin meeting: No agreement, no questions but lots of pomp
WASHINGTON (AP) — The much-anticipated summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin began with a warm welcome and a flyover by screaming jets at a U.S. military base in Alaska but ended with a thud Friday after they conceded that they had failed to reach any agreements on how to end the Russia-Ukraine war. After about 2 1/2 hours of talks at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, the two men appeared before reporters for what had been billed as a joint news conference — but they took no questions. 'We had an extremely productive meeting and many points were agreed to, there are just a very few that are left,' Trump said. 'We didn't get there, but we have a very good chance of getting there.' Putin, welcomed into the U.S. after being shunned by Western allies since early 2022 for ordering the invasion of Ukraine, thanked Trump for hosting the meeting and suggested with a chuckle that the next time the two sit down it could be in Moscow. Here are key takeaways from the summit: A warm welcome underscoring the friendly Trump-Putin relationship Putin got a red carpet welcome and even rode in Trump's presidential limousine from the tarmac to the summit venue. There, the pair were joined by two of their top aides: Secretary of State and national security adviser Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff for Trump and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and national security adviser Yuri Ushakov for Putin. Putin, who spoke first after the meeting concluded, lauded the historical relationship between the United States, Russia and the former Soviet Union, recalling joint missions conducted by the two countries during World War II. He said the U.S. and Russia share values, a standard talking point for Russian officials when trying to woo Trump and his aides. Putin also noted that Trump has frequently said the Ukraine war wouldn't have happened had he won the 2020 election. 'I think that would have been the case,' the Russian leader said, a comment sure to please Trump. However, there is no indication and no way to prove that Moscow would have acted differently toward Ukraine had Democrat Joe Biden not been elected. Trump touts progress but concedes there was no deal Trump had gone into the meeting hoping to get Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine — or at least a commitment from Russia to enter into negotiations to reach one. Instead, Trump conceded that 'we haven't quite got there' and said he would be conferring with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and NATO leaders about next steps. Trump said he and Putin had made some significant progress toward the goal of ending the conflict but gave no details on what that entailed and had to acknowledge that they had been unable to bridge substantial gaps. 'I believe we had a very productive meeting,' Trump said. 'We haven't quite got there, but we've made some headway. So, there's no deal until there's a deal.' In a subsequent conversation with Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel, Trump again offered no details on his discussions with Putin. With diplomatic progress creeping along, time is on Putin's side Amid drawn-out diplomatic moves to end the war, time is appears to be on Putin's side. That gives a leg up to Russian forces, who have used their larger numbers to slowly grind down defenses in eastern Ukraine 3 1/2 years into the conflict. Putin got a pleasant reception from the leader of the free world on U.S. soil and walked away hours later without either providing details on what they discussed, whether a ceasefire was any closer to reality or what the next steps would be. Putin praised Trump for the 'friendly' tone of the talks — Trump said nothing publicly about the killing of Ukrainian civilians in Moscow's attacks — and for 'understanding that Russia has its own national interests.' Putin said Moscow and Washington should 'turn the page,' with relations having sunk to the lowest point since the Cold War. Putin appearing in the U.S. for the first time in 10 years was celebrated as a sign that Moscow was no longer a pariah on the global stage. In a social media post, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova told followers that the Western press would be on the verge of 'losing their minds.' 'For three years, they talked about Russia's isolation, and today they saw the red carpet being rolled out to greet the Russian president in the United States,' she said. There were no details and no questions Both men said the talks were 'productive' but the lack of any announcement of solid achievements was revealing. The news conference ended up being less than 15 minutes of rather standard diplomatic comments — and gave no indication that any concrete results were achieved — and offered little departure from their previous comments on the war in Ukraine. Trump has made it a feature of his second term to parry questions from reporters in front of world leaders, but in the clearest sign of his disappointment, the president abruptly cut short his plans to take questions. Trump had gone into the summit saying here was a 25% chance that the summit would fail and that it was meant to be a 'feel-out meeting,' but he had also floated the idea of bringing Zelenskyy to Alaska for a subsequent, three-way meeting if things went well. It's unclear what comes next. ___ Associated Press writers Katie Marie Davies, Dasha Litvinova and Michelle L. Price contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody
McALLEN, Texas (AP) — A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Vancouver Sun
an hour ago
- Vancouver Sun
Maine state senator's pitch for western provinces to join U.S. is ‘nonsense,' says ‘enraged' B.C. MLA
VICTORIA — A British Columbia legislator said he went from 'disappointed' to 'enraged' after receiving a pitch from a Republican state senator for Canada's four western provinces to join the United States. Brennan Day, with the Opposition B.C. Conservative Party, said his office had to first confirm the authenticity of the 'nonsense' letter from Maine Sen. Joseph Martin after receiving it last week. Martin's three-page pitch said if B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were to seek admission to the United States after referendum votes, it would have to be as full American states. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. 'This would not be annexation. It would be adoption — welcoming home kindred spirits, who were born under a different flag but who desire to live under our Constitution and accept our responsibilities, customs, and traditions,' he wrote in the letter shared by Day. Martin said in the letter that his appeal is not a 'fantasy of empire' but a 'vision deeply rooted in American tradition' that would give the four provinces a chance to 'leave behind failing ideologies.' 'For too long, Canadian citizens have been subjected to an illusion of freedom administered through bureaucratic means,' he wrote, adding that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 'while lofty in rhetoric, provides no absolute protection.' He said this was in contrast to the U.S. Bill of Rights. Martin said 'millions of people currently frustrated by central authority, moral decay, and bureaucratic suffocation' would be rewarded by 'liberty' if the four provinces were to join the United States. 'The welcome mat is out,' he concluded. Day said the most shocking part of the letter was its attack on Canadian institutions, like the Charter of Rights, parliamentary government, monarchism, bilingualism, multiculturalism, and the dismissal of those cornerstones as 'political baggage.' Day said in an interview that Martin needed to look at 'how heavy his luggage' is. He said Martin's party was 'hauling around wheeled trunks' of baggage in the United States where the Constitution was 'being torn up by Republicans.' Day said it was not clear why Martin wrote to him, but suspected it might be due to 'rhetoric' coming out of Alberta that led Martin to believe British Columbians would be interested. Martin did not immediately respond to a request for comment left by voice mail and text. Day said he had written a response to Martin, in which he acknowledged that Canada has problems. 'But we don't fix them by surrendering our identity, as you suggest,' Day said in his response. 'We fix them by doing what Canadians have always done — rolling up our sleeves, listening to each other, and finding common ground.' Day said in his interview that the 'overwhelming majority of Canadians' like themselves just as they are. 'We have got a lot of work to do in improving our services, and making sure that we are spending our money wisely, and getting good value for it,' Day said. 'But I don't think anybody here looks south and goes, 'we want more of that.'' Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
