This content is reserved for subscribers.

This content is reserved for subscribers.

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s Wednesday tariff deadline looms, there are worrying signs that Canadian manufacturers are going to pack up and move south of the border. This is unsurprising for a country that imposes high costs on businesses and seems to have resigned itself to being Trump’s whipping boy.

Last month, KPMG Canada released the results of a survey of 275 Canadian manufacturers conducted in May, which found that 42 per cent of them have considered, or are currently considering, moving production south of the border. Eleven per cent said they’re thinking of moving their head offices to the United States.

A few weeks later, the Financial Post reported that Vancouver-based Interfor Corp., one of the world’s largest lumber producers, plans to “shift its corporate and functional support operations” from British Columbia to Georgia, largely due to Trump’s crippling 45 per cent tariffs on softwood lumber.

Coercing manufacturers to relocate production to the U.S. is, of course, exactly what Trump hoped to achieve. It also explains why the president has singled Canada out for disproportionate punishment: while the U.S. can’t compete with developing countries on labour costs and moving operations from Europe is a costly endeavour, Canada is situated right next door, has an economy that’s already highly integrated with the U.S. and has relatively high wages and an uncompetitive tax system.

If these weren’t reasons enough to put Canada in the crosshairs, Prime Minister Mark Carney has shown little willingness to stand up to the bully next door. A year ago, he unilaterally removed most of the counter-tariffs imposed on American goods by his predecessor, only maintaining duties on steel, aluminum and automobiles to protect Canadian industry from similar U.S. tariffs.

It’s now apparent that this was a tactical mistake: Carney’s gesture of goodwill lost Canada a strategic bargaining chip, while failing to buy trade peace. Now, the Trump administration is citing Ottawa’s reciprocal tariffs on autos, along with booze bans imposed by some provinces in response to Trump’s trade war, as part of its justification for imposing 50 per cent tariffs on US$20 billion (C$28 billion) worth of Canadian goods.

Whether that actually happens remains to be seen: the president gets called on his bluffs so often, the acronym TACO (Trump always chickens out) has entered the English lexicon. Except once in a while, he kidnaps the president of Venezuela, bombs Iran or imposes tariffs on the entire world, ensuring everyone must remain on their toes at all times.

Regardless, the message to Canada, as explained by White House trade advisor Peter Navarro in these pages last month, is crystal clear: we will whip you as much as we want, and if you try to fight back, we’ll punish you even harder.

This position makes sense, given that most countries have quietly acquiesced to Trump’s tariffs. But Canada stands apart from the pack because we’re America’s second-largest trading partner , behind Mexico and ahead of China, and have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1989 .

In his first term, Trump railed against NAFTA, calling it the “worst trade deal ever made,” and renegotiated it as the Canada-U.S. Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The fact that he now intends to violate his own agreement by imposing crippling tariffs on many CUSMA-compliant goods does not inspire a lot of hope for any future settlement — the man likes making deals, just not keeping them.

With this latest trade threat, the White House is hoping we’ll scrap our longstanding yet self-destructive system of supply management, restock provincial liquor stores with American booze and drop our counter-tariffs on automobiles, all before sitting down to renegotiate CUSMA, which is clearly a nonstarter.

The flurry of trade negotiations in Washington suggests the federal Liberals are hoping to make some minor concessions to avoid the threatened sanctions and head into the CUSMA talks with our biggest bargaining chips in tact. Yet even if such a strategy succeeds, Canada will be left with a weaker hand — and the White House knows it.

The alternative strategy — and the only one that appears to work with Trump — is to up the ante. This is the tactic that’s been employed by China and Iran, the two countries that have arguably succeeded in getting the Trump administration to back down.

When Trump escalated his trade war with China last year, the Middle Kingdom didn’t roll over, but instead raised the stakes, continually increasing tariffs on American imports to a peak of 125 per cent. At this point, the White House caved, dropping tariffs to 30 per cent, from a high of 145 per cent.

Iran also refused to yield after being hit with punishing American and Israeli airstrikes. Instead of taking the off-ramp offered by the administration, it continued blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which appears to have succeeded, as Trump is no longer insisting Tehran put a stop to its nuclear program. The Iranian regime knows that both Trump and the American people have little appetite for war, and have exploited it to their full advantage.

Both countries are bad actors, and I’m by no means suggesting we should get in bed with them or emulate their tactics. But Canada does more trade with the U.S. than China — purchasing over US$333 billion worth of U.S. good last year alone — which means that any retaliatory measures we impose could have a big impact on the American economy. And with the midterm elections looming, now would be the time to make our move.

National Post
jkline@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/accessd

• Carson Jerema: Trump wants trade — just not on terms anyone can decipher
• Peter Navarro: Canada wants free trade — only on its terms

As U.S. President Donald Trump’s Wednesday tariff deadline looms, there are worrying signs that Canadian manufacturers are going to pack up and move south of the border. This is unsurprising for a country that imposes high costs on businesses and seems to have resigned itself to being Trump’s whipping boy.

Last month, KPMG Canada released the results of a survey of 275 Canadian manufacturers conducted in May, which found that 42 per cent of them have considered, or are currently considering, moving production south of the border. Eleven per cent said they’re thinking of moving their head offices to the United States.

A few weeks later, the Financial Post reported that Vancouver-based Interfor Corp., one of the world’s largest lumber producers, plans to “shift its corporate and functional support operations” from British Columbia to Georgia, largely due to Trump’s crippling 45 per cent tariffs on softwood lumber.

Coercing manufacturers to relocate production to the U.S. is, of course, exactly what Trump hoped to achieve. It also explains why the president has singled Canada out for disproportionate punishment: while the U.S. can’t compete with developing countries on labour costs and moving operations from Europe is a costly endeavour, Canada is situated right next door, has an economy that’s already highly integrated with the U.S. and has relatively high wages and an uncompetitive tax system.

If these weren’t reasons enough to put Canada in the crosshairs, Prime Minister Mark Carney has shown little willingness to stand up to the bully next door. A year ago, he unilaterally removed most of the counter-tariffs imposed on American goods by his predecessor, only maintaining duties on steel, aluminum and automobiles to protect Canadian industry from similar U.S. tariffs.

It’s now apparent that this was a tactical mistake: Carney’s gesture of goodwill lost Canada a strategic bargaining chip, while failing to buy trade peace. Now, the Trump administration is citing Ottawa’s reciprocal tariffs on autos, along with booze bans imposed by some provinces in response to Trump’s trade war, as part of its justification for imposing 50 per cent tariffs on US$20 billion (C$28 billion) worth of Canadian goods.

Whether that actually happens remains to be seen: the president gets called on his bluffs so often, the acronym TACO (Trump always chickens out) has entered the English lexicon. Except once in a while, he kidnaps the president of Venezuela, bombs Iran or imposes tariffs on the entire world, ensuring everyone must remain on their toes at all times.

Regardless, the message to Canada, as explained by White House trade advisor Peter Navarro in these pages last month, is crystal clear: we will whip you as much as we want, and if you try to fight back, we’ll punish you even harder.

This position makes sense, given that most countries have quietly acquiesced to Trump’s tariffs. But Canada stands apart from the pack because we’re America’s second-largest trading partner , behind Mexico and ahead of China, and have had a free-trade agreement in place since 1989 .

In his first term, Trump railed against NAFTA, calling it the “worst trade deal ever made,” and renegotiated it as the Canada-U.S. Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). The fact that he now intends to violate his own agreement by imposing crippling tariffs on many CUSMA-compliant goods does not inspire a lot of hope for any future settlement — the man likes making deals, just not keeping them.

With this latest trade threat, the White House is hoping we’ll scrap our longstanding yet self-destructive system of supply management, restock provincial liquor stores with American booze and drop our counter-tariffs on automobiles, all before sitting down to renegotiate CUSMA, which is clearly a nonstarter.

The flurry of trade negotiations in Washington suggests the federal Liberals are hoping to make some minor concessions to avoid the threatened sanctions and head into the CUSMA talks with our biggest bargaining chips in tact. Yet even if such a strategy succeeds, Canada will be left with a weaker hand — and the White House knows it.

The alternative strategy — and the only one that appears to work with Trump — is to up the ante. This is the tactic that’s been employed by China and Iran, the two countries that have arguably succeeded in getting the Trump administration to back down.

When Trump escalated his trade war with China last year, the Middle Kingdom didn’t roll over, but instead raised the stakes, continually increasing tariffs on American imports to a peak of 125 per cent. At this point, the White House caved, dropping tariffs to 30 per cent, from a high of 145 per cent.

Iran also refused to yield after being hit with punishing American and Israeli airstrikes. Instead of taking the off-ramp offered by the administration, it continued blocking the Strait of Hormuz, which appears to have succeeded, as Trump is no longer insisting Tehran put a stop to its nuclear program. The Iranian regime knows that both Trump and the American people have little appetite for war, and have exploited it to their full advantage.

Both countries are bad actors, and I’m by no means suggesting we should get in bed with them or emulate their tactics. But Canada does more trade with the U.S. than China — purchasing over US$333 billion worth of U.S. good last year alone — which means that any retaliatory measures we impose could have a big impact on the American economy. And with the midterm elections looming, now would be the time to make our move.

National Post
jkline@postmedia.com
Twitter.com/accessd

• Carson Jerema: Trump wants trade — just not on terms anyone can decipher
• Peter Navarro: Canada wants free trade — only on its terms

The Canadian Human Rights Museum in Winnipeg has been under much scrutiny since the opening of its “Nakba” exhibit on June 27. (The “Nakba” is the controversial term used by Israel detractors to assert that the exodus of 700,000 Arabs from Israel in the 1947-1948 war was a war crime).

One way of looking at the actions of the museum is to contrast it with the actions of the Canadian War Museum in the early 2000s when faced with a controversy of its own. Both museums report to Parliament through the minister responsible for Canadian Identity and Culture, both are Crown corporations. The war museum controversy ended with contrition and correction, in sharp contrast to the attitude of the human rights museum to criticism it is now facing.

In the case of the Canadian War Museum, a large exhibit displaying the story of the Allied bombing of Germany in the Second World War contained a wall display that asserted — correctly — that the Commonwealth Air Forces (including the Royal Canadian Air Force) — “area bombing campaign” was and is controversial from both a moral and strategic point of view — which was and is true. But the wording of the wall display also gave the impression that the bombing campaign did not really have much impact on the war until its very late stages.

The human rights museum controversy arises out of the fact that the museum has stood fast behind its exhibit although there are major discrepancies between what the museum claims happened and what a raft of experts assert happened. For example, the Nakba exhibit contains not a word about the 800,000 Jews expelled from Arab countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The museum claims that the story of the Jewish refugees in the period 1948-1955 is told elsewhere in the building. But those viewing the Nakba exhibit would be hard pressed to know that unless they visited the entire museum and looked at all the exhibits. Something that few museum goers would normally do.

The museum refuses to name the consultants who contributed to the exhibit. Its supporters claim that the government, which owns and funds the museum, should have nothing to say about the exhibits that are put on by it, even though Culture Minister Marc Miller, who visited the exhibit at the time of its opening, criticized aspects of the exhibit, specifically that it should have identified Hamas as a terrorist organization and that it should have “more clearly” described the nature of the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7, 2023. But the exhibit stands as it did on the day it was opened.

That was not the case with the bomber command display at the Canadian War Museum. After considerable uproar by veterans of the Second World War — there were still many thousands still alive at that time — who claimed they were being smeared as carrying out a murderous and immoral campaign that had little impact on the war, the museum engaged several well known Canadian military historians to examine the wall and give their impressions of the veracity of the wording.

The consensus was that the bombing campaign had a significant impact on the Allied victory — a reflection of work done by many British, Canadian and American military historians. Most works today claim not that air bombing won the war, or was even the main reason for the Allied victory, but that it contributed significantly to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

The end result of this controversy was that in late 2007, the offending panel was replaced by a panel with a longer text which declared that the bombing campaign had been a major component of the Allied victory, that there had been a large Canadian contribution to the campaign, but also acknowledged that the campaign was still controversial.

Now, the human rights museum effectively claims that it got everything correct the first time and will not budge whereas in the earlier case, the museum acknowledged its error and corrected it.

The Nakba exhibit is a totally one-sided depiction of the removal — some by panicked human beings fleeing a war they were not prepared for and others who were deliberately forced from their homes by Jewish/Israeli forces — which did not take place at one blow. Israeli historians Benny Morris and Tom Segev showed that in their well documented books about the refugees. But Morris and Segev were not invited to consult. Why not?

Because to do so would have been to admit that the Nakba as presented by the Canadian Museum of Human Rights is actually a propaganda weapon to beat Israel over the head.

David Bercuson is a senior fellow with the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy and Director Emeritus of the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary. He is co-author of the new Aristotle Foundation report, “The Nakba: The Consequences of a War.” He was one of the historians consulted by the Canadian War Museum regarding the Bomber Command display.

• Geoff Russ: Yes, the B.C. wildfires should be politicized
• Michael Higgins: Canada to America — Make a deal or watch how angry we get

Jewish students and their parents must prepare themselves for shock and awe this fall on college and university campuses. The latest statistics coming from a report commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage are alarming. The report found that 95.7 per cent of the 900 students interviewed experienced some sort of antisemitism, while 84 per cent considered antisemitism a serious matter on campus.

This is not alarmism . There is now concrete evidence showing that 7 in 10 Jewish respondents in the study felt their universities were not taking antisemitism seriously. Seventy-two per cent said they limit what they say in class about being Jewish. Fifty-seven per cent avoid wearing or displaying Jewish symbols because of safety concerns. Sixty-eight per cent said their campus is not a safe and inclusive place for Jewish students.

It’s been 21 years since I attended the first “Israeli Apartheid Week” at the University of Toronto. Since then, I have been on the frontlines witnessing countless demonstrations, anti-Israel speakers and even the now infamous ‘boycott, divestment and sanctions’ campaigns promulgating hate against the Jewish state and Jewish students. The situation has only gotten worse for our children.

Who would have thought that the Palestinian flag would make an acceptable appearance at some graduation ceremonies this past spring?

The consequences of these sobering statistics are transforming how Jewish students live and learn as they and their parents worry for their safety, given the report’s finding that 22 per cent have experienced some sort form of physical violence.

One student described a kippah-wearing friend being chased from a university building by people shouting , “There’s a Jew — let’s get him.”

In another survey commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies, positive opinions of Judaism fell from 49 to 40 per cent over 15 months, while negative opinions rose from 25 to 32 per cent.

The question for us all is whether universities are just factories for turning out anti-Jewish bigots who are now forming our nation’s social fabric.

Jewish students entering university this fall will be on the frontlines of Jew-hate and they must come prepared, especially if they are entering their first year. Here are some of my suggestions:

First, I recommend they develop a safety and support plan, even before classes begin. Aside from identifying campus security contacts and emergency numbers, they can connect with aligned and trusted faculty (even if not their own), join Jewish student groups like Hillel and Chabad and foster a strong social protective network. They must never confront organized anti-Israel hostility alone.

Second, for those wishing to pursue activism, I suggest they document all issues of concern using video and screenshots — provided it is safe and legal. Evidence is far more difficult for an institution and law enforcement to ignore. In this, students can create report incidents in writing to deans, university presidents and even members of governing boards, citing applicable university discrimination policies. I encourage students to also refer the matter to local law enforcement and an external Jewish organization, especially concerning hate speech and violence.

Third, understanding your legal rights as a student is important. Threats and intimidation, blocking access anywhere on campus, following students, damaging property, glorifying terrorism and, of course, open discrimination and exclusion are all illegal according to Canadian law. Universities often hide or bury these incidents excusing them as “academic freedom.” Aside from issuing a complaint to administration, students should refer such matters externally to law enforcement.

Fourth, I strongly encourage students not to get baited into uncontrolled confrontations in person or online. It’s important to always remain calm and not be drawn into reckless behaviour that might endanger yourself or a friend.

For their part, parents these days must remain engaged given these safety concerns. Some students may be genuinely afraid to be away from the comfort of home, feeling isolation, fear and anxiety.

None of these suggestions relieve universities from accountability. These jarring statistics are a wake-up call for all university presidents about the need for immediate institutional change. No Jewish student should have to hide their Star of David or remove their kippah, a sign that the university has failed one of its most fundamental objectives — to turn every student into a respectable and contributing member of society.

Jewish students should return to campus alert, organized and unafraid. They should know their rights, protect one another, record every incident and demand accountability.

Avi Abraham Benlolo is the chairman and CEO of The Abraham Global Peace Initiative, a Canadian think-tank countering antisemitism, defending Israel and promoting democracy.

• Michael Higgins: Canada to America — Make a deal or watch how angry we get
• Collin May: Edmonton should not repeat U.K.’s hate speech reporting mistakes

Canadian authorities, by and large, now regard antisemitism as a significant and growing problem, and universities have become one of the places where, post-Oct. 7, 2023, it has manifested itself most visibly.

When Prime Minister Mark Carney identified antisemitism in Canada as having reached levels not seen in generations, he specifically highlighted the plight of Jewish students being driven from common spaces on University campuses.

Hundreds of experiences like that and far more egregious instances of antisemitism are detailed in the Campus Antisemitism and Student Experiences (CASE) report issued last week.

Here’s a verbatim sampling of what some Jewish students say they have experienced on Canadian campuses taken from that report:

I was told “Hitler should have finished you off” when people found out that I was Jewish.

I saw graffiti saying “Zionism is a death cult,” “Zionists invent false allegations of sexual assault,” “Death to Zionism,” and “Death to Israel.”

A professor wrote that we need to kill all Zionists, that she had worked with them and saw how evil they were.

I went to the bathroom; someone saw my (Star of David) and said, “Welcome to your gas chamber,” while people were vaping.

I was told to go die when I said I was a Jew from Israel.

My friend was walking through (REDACTED) Hall. He also wears a kippah, and a group of students shouted, “There’s a Jew…let’s get him.” They then chased him out of the building.

I was told by a professor, in class, in the middle of the lecture, that Jews belong in Poland and need to go back.

I was told that it was a shame Hitler did not finish the job.

I heard a Jewish friend being called a Zionist whore and spat on because she was wearing a visible Magen David.

I faced extreme pressure from other student organizations to release a statement against Zionism in my position as president of the (REDACTED) student union, and had my name placed on a list circulating on and off campus as a “known Zionist.”

Students asked me to remove my chai necklace because it was too Jewish.

Professor assigned us to listen to a podcast that discussed how Zionism was similar to Nazism, which was unrelated to the course.

I was harassed online … She went as far as spamming my art page for five days straight, sending me radical reels, calling my elderly family “killers.”

Various (protesters) shouted antisemitic slurs at visibly Jewish students on campus, including phrases such as “Hitler should have killed all of you.”

In first year, several mezuzot were torn from the doors of my residence. They never caught the people who did it.

Residents at my on-campus residence started rumours about me that I am a child killer, white supremacist, racist, and Zionist, all because these people found out that I was Jewish.

Jews were described as greedy for money in a lecture.

In a course that had nothing to do with Israel, my professor spent three weeks talking about Gaza and the creation of the State of Israel. He never mentioned the Holocaust as a precursor to its founding, repeatedly calling the state a “Zionist political project.”

When discussing characters in a book, my professor described one character by saying that “based on his last name, he is clearly Jewish and probably has a hooked nose.”

I and many other members of a Jewish organization unrelated to Israel received phone calls containing death threats after October 7.

Someone waiting in line in front of me said: “The Holocaust did not really happen. But if it did, Hitler was right.”

I cannot speak Hebrew with my parents on the phone on campus; I have stopped wearing Jewish symbols; I cannot talk about my holiday plans because they are Jewish; I have to hide who I am and where I come from.

Many students minimize the Holocaust and Jewish trauma, say that Gaza is the modern Auschwitz, and accuse Jews of “becoming what you swore to destroy.”

We were excluded from our (Equity, Diversity, Inclusion) community when it held a “pro-Palestinian” support meeting and said it was not offering a support group for Jewish/Israeli students. So we created our own support group.

Working in my labs, I have had people refuse to work with me due to my Jewish identity and purposely try to mess up my data.

Several faculty members in my program minimized the Holocaust or used it to condemn the Israeli response immediately after October 7.

My classmates required me to share my opinions on Israel as a condition for joining a student-led EDI initiative that should have been open to all graduate students in my department.

I heard a professor say that “Hitler was a hero.”

I was in the library and saw written on a desk: “Just because Hitler killed 6 million Jews does not mean he is a bad person.”

When I was at the campus gym, while wearing a kippah that made me visibly Jewish, a student came up to me and said he wished all Israelis would die because we are “a bunch of colonizers from Europe.”

Shortly after October 7, I told my PhD supervisor that I did not feel safe on campus and she replied: “Well, you should see the other side.”

A member of my anti-racism research lab at the university minimized the impact of the Holocaust while the other lab members remained silent. For example, she said: “The Holocaust was not the first time gas chambers were used. They were first used against Indigenous peoples in Canada.” When I raised this with my research supervisor, now tenured, her reaction was to protect the student responsible. For example, she said: “What happens in the lab stays in the lab.”

I was told to leave a public space because I was wearing a kippah.

One of my friends asked me what I was doing for Christmas, and I answered that I do not celebrate it because I am Jewish. She immediately asked whether I was Zionist. I answered yes, and she began excluding me from activities and making hateful remarks when she saw me on campus.

Many students minimize the Holocaust and Jewish trauma, say that Gaza is the modern Auschwitz, and accuse Jews of “becoming what you swore to destroy.”

• Antisemitism increasingly ‘normalized’ on Canadian campuses, report finds
• ‘Hiding their Jewish identity’: Professor warns antisemitism is making campuses intolerable for Jews