Carney is a globalist who is betraying his people, with mass migration of inferior people and is cozing up to the other globalists betraying their people, by also replacing their people with inferior people. Carney has had British and Irish passports in the past. He wants Canada to be a part of the new world order, not an independent country.
Canada has long taken advantage of the US. They are a user, not an ally. If they would just treat the US fairly and meet their financial obligations, President Donald Trump would ease up on them. [
European Canadians are doomed. 45% of their population is now made up of first or second generation immigrants, including Boco. But most aren't like Boco and bring their own crap cultures and beliefs. The sad reality is that China or India will very likely control Canada in 30 years or less. It's probably too late to save Canada for traditional Canadians.
Keith
Keith: as a Canadian I would truly like to understand how you feel that Canada has taken advantage of the US. Can you cite one
concrete example that makes you believe this?
Its one thing to claim you were taken advantage of. Its a whole other thing to say Canadians have not been a US ally.
Quite frankly, as a Canadian, that is offensive. Do just a bit of research before you post drivel like this.
If Canada has not been there for the US, who has been? Who has been more of an ally.
1. Canadian protectionism against U.S. agriculture
Canada has historically maintained a highly protected supply-management system for dairy, poultry and eggs.
That means:
Canada restricts how much foreign product can enter.
Imports above quotas can face extremely high tariffs.
U.S. farmers have consequently had limited access to the Canadian market.
Canada has maintained this protection even while enjoying relatively open access to the much larger U.S. market.
The U.S. government has challenged Canada's administration of its dairy tariff-rate quotas under USMCA. Congress's research service says the U.S. has challenged Canada's dairy TRQs twice, with mixed results.
This is probably one of the clearest examples of Canada using the U.S. market while protecting its own market from U.S. competition.
2. Softwood lumber
This has been one of the longest-running U.S.-Canada trade disputes.
The basic U.S. complaint is that much Canadian timber comes from provincial Crown lands, where timber is sold under government-controlled systems rather than the private-market system prevalent in much of the United States. U.S. lumber producers have argued that this gives Canadian producers an artificial cost advantage.
The dispute has produced repeated U.S. countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Canada's own government acknowledges that the dispute has persisted for more than 25 years.
From the U.S. perspective, the negative is that subsidized or government-priced Canadian lumber can put American sawmills and timber owners under competitive pressure.
3. Taking advantage of the U.S. military umbrella
For decades, Canada spent considerably less on defense than the United States while receiving the enormous security benefits of living next to the world's dominant military power.
NATO itself has acknowledged the problem. In 2026, Secretary General Mark Rutte said that European allies and Canada had been "over-reliant on US military might" and had not taken enough responsibility for their own security.
That means American taxpayers funded capabilities that also protected Canada.
4. Benefiting from U.S. security while maintaining relatively small armed forces
This is related but distinct.
Canada hasn't maintaineed anything even remotely comparable to the U.S. military.
Canada therefore gets:
protection of North American airspace through NORAD,
protection of North Atlantic sea lanes,
the deterrent effect of the U.S. nuclear arsenal,
U.S. intelligence capabilities,
U.S. satellite and reconnaissance capabilities,
U.S. naval power,
U.S. logistical capabilities.
Yet the Canadian defense burden historically has been much smaller.
The imbalance was significant enough that NATO specifically described European countries and Canada as having been over-reliant on U.S. military power.
5. Canadian retaliation deliberately targets politically sensitive American industries
Canada has repeatedly responded to U.S. trade measures with tariffs aimed at products produced in particular U.S. states or politically influential industries.
The current 2026 dispute provides a particularly clear example: Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on about $20 billion of U.S. goods, including products such as agricultural machinery and other politically sensitive exports.
From the U.S. perspective, the problem is that Canadian retaliation can impose concentrated damage on particular American industries even though the overall Canadian economy is much smaller.
6. Canada has used its access to the enormous U.S. market as leverage
This is perhaps the broader pattern behind many of the individual disputes.
Canada sends roughly three-quarters of its exports to the United States, making the U.S. by far its most important foreign market.
Yet Canada has periodically maintained policies that restrict American access to Canada while benefiting enormously from access to American consumers.
In other words, the asymmetry gives Canada an unusual advantage:
Canada needs the U.S. market more than the U.S. needs the Canadian consumer market, but Canada can still use restrictions on American products to protect Canadian producers.
7. Canadian energy policy has benefited Canada while creating vulnerabilities for the U.S.
Canada possesses enormous oil, natural-gas, uranium and hydroelectric resources, and the United States has become a major customer.
Canada consequently gets a huge, reliable customer immediately next door.
The problem from the American perspective is that the U.S. has sometimes allowed itself to become dependent on Canadian supplies of particular commodities while Canada has been able to use that dependence as bargaining leverage.
Canada uses the US resource dependency politically.
8. Canadian policies have sometimes deliberately discriminated against American companies
There have been Canadian policies involving digital services, cultural industries, broadcasting/streaming and other sectors that have disproportionately affected large American companies.
The Congressional Research Service specifically notes U.S. concerns that some Canadian digital-services regulations and funding requirements unfairly affected U.S. firms. Canada subsequently repealed its digital services tax and modified some of these policies.
I'd divide the legitimate American complaints into three major categories:
Issue Advantage Canada obtained
Agricultural protectionism Protected Canadian farmers from U.S. competition
Lumber subsidies/pricing Potential cost advantage for Canadian lumber producers
Defense burden Received substantial security benefits while historically spending relatively little
Retaliatory tariffs Ability to concentrate economic pain on politically important U.S. industries
Market restrictions Protected Canadian companies while retaining access to the enormous U.S. market
Energy leverage Ability to exploit U.S. dependence on particular Canadian resources
The strongest cases, in my view, are Canadian agricultural protectionism and the historical defense-spending imbalance. The softwood-lumber issue is real but much more legally complicated than the simple claim that "Canada subsidizes lumber."
The bilateral relationship has systematically favored Canada despite America's much greater economic and military power.
Keith
