download (88).jpeg
For the time being, the United States has given Canada a tariff reprieve. They have urged us to address the following important goals, and this is our opportunity to advance diplomacy:
✅ Energy security in North America and bolstering American energy supremacy
✅ Fulfilling our commitments to national security
✅ Security at the border
✅ Fighting unauthorized immigrants
✅ Combating crime and drug use Let's take advantage of this chance to protect Canada's interests and promote solid cross-border collaboration.
Live reporting
So last night -Donald Trump, or the White House, Elsa dumb that he was looking at February first for a twenty-five percent on Canada and Mexico -and you've been saying we have a reprieve. I'm just wondering how you square those two things, and how do you interpret what he said last night? The other thing is, I mean, do you see a point at which some sort of forceful action will be necessary? Ah, if Donald Trump sees tariffs as a revenue source, it doesn't seem that there's as much you could do to assuage him.
He hasn't really been clear at all about what he wants. Do you see a point at which Canada will have to be much more forceful in its approach to things? I mean, whether it's a few days or whether it's a few weeks. Say, I don't know what I don't think anyone knows what I do know is that in the executive order on trade, he gave direction to his various ministers to examine all of the trade agreements, including the one with Canada, and bring back a comprehensive report on April the first, so this was more what's written in the executive order, and so I would hope that we have summer free. I think it was expecting tariffs day one that didn't happen, so whether it's a few days or a few weeks, I think we should make sure that we're using it hasn't hit every well. - I again am more of the view that we have to find a deal from a diplomatic point of view, and I don't know that this particular administration and this particular president respond well to threats, and especially empty threats, if he wants more energy security. You should be talking about how you can provide energy security, not making the conversation about energy a security undermine.
So, that's why I have taken out a bit of a different approach. We've been wanting to double our oil and gas production and want to double the amount of pipeline space. I think that there's a constructive conversation to have there. I think PC has a constructive compress it. They should have about Germanium, which is one of the critical minerals that has been identified by China, will now no longer be exported to the United States Central Defence Out locations. I think Scott Mo and Scotland are a great case to make about uranium; they already provide twenty percent of the world's uranium, and America is relying on Kazakhstan and Russia for a portion of their supply of it, I say. -and you can go through each province in each territory, and each of us has a value proposition that I think sinks with America's aspiration to be energy dominant on both the traditional forms of energy and most critical minerals, so I think we have a position of strength going, and I think we should be confident going in from that position of strength to attempt to be able to provide a north me -Iraq and contacts, though I may take a bit of a different approach from my counterparts, but I think it's going to be the successful one.
facebook_20250121_165558.mp4
[attachment deleted by admin]