this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2025
146 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

10141 readers
1022 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

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

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 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.

  2. Misinformation is not welcome here.

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
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
146
If Trumps Tariffs are going ahead even after we allocated billions into the border along with that fentanyl czar, why bother even keeping those now? (lemm.ee)
submitted 4 months ago by tazzy@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seems it was a waste of our time and money. If anything, Canada should be asking the USA to increase their own border security as guns and drugs come into Canada at a much larger scale. And why even have a fentanyl czar etc if none of our actions will stop the tariffs? This was never about the border or drugs but Trump said jump and Canada asked How high?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bluebadoo@lemmy.world 48 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Actually, the money we allocated to border control occurred in December 2024, at least a month before Trump threatened tariffs. Trudeau then gave it a fun name (Fentanyl Czar) and Trump accepted that as yielding to his demands. We didn’t budge an inch, but we bought ourselves a month.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 30 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And we also bought ourselves the perception of being the "reasonable ones", with the US being even more blatantly painted as flagrant deal-breakers.

That will be useful as we build new alliances with the rest of the world.

[–] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And while they try to make new deals.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And while they try to make new deals.

Who in their right mind would make a deal with a country/president who casually breaks deals whenever they feel like it?

Unless that other party is completely manipulating Trump in the way Putin routinely does...

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

Who would make a deal with someone who says that was a horrible deal who would have signed it but it was him.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

We allocated $1.3b in early December as a response to Trump's initial tariff threat.

Monday’s 270-page budget document outlined key new expenditures including C$1.3 billion for border agencies over six years, an attempt to avert Trump’s threat of 25% tariffs unless the flow of migrants and fentanyl over the crossing is halted.

We budged.

I don't think it was the wrong choice, but I don't think it had the desired effect.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I see the other side of that where we're upping border control in case Trump decides he wants to invade. That's not a bad thing.

[–] Sturgist@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 months ago

I mean even if he doesn't invade, stopping the drugs and guns coming north from the US isn't necessarily a bad thing

[–] tleb@lemmy.ca 4 points 4 months ago

And you think that allocation was unrelated to Trump?