By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Your registration is complete, and you’ve consented to receive the Sunrise newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is currently being sent and may appear in your junk folder. Keep an eye out for the next issue of Sunrise, which will be delivered directly to your inbox.
Read the original article here
B.C. to launch anti-tariff ads as Ontario pauses controversial campaign. Well, this is certainly a hot topic, isn’t it? It seems British Columbia is stepping into the fray with its own anti-tariff campaign, picking up the baton, as it were, while Ontario has decided to pull back on its efforts. The initial reaction, at least from some, was less than enthusiastic about the use of taxpayer dollars for these kinds of advertisements. The consensus initially was that it just wasn’t important to spend funds on anti-tariff ads.
However, the situation has evolved, and the sentiment has shifted, particularly when the stakes involve standing up to what is perceived as bullying. It’s a sentiment as old as time: fighting back against those who try to push you around. Some feel that capitulating to demands, especially in the face of potential threats, only signals weakness. There’s a strong belief that Canada possesses substantial leverage and a variety of retaliatory options to utilize.
This leads to the feeling of frustration towards politicians who may be seen as overly accommodating or attempting to negotiate with someone perceived as unreliable. The current stance advocates for a more assertive approach – a willingness to punch back when confronted. There’s an undercurrent of support for Premier Eby and a desire not to “bend the knee” to what’s seen as an unreasonable threat. Some people are even suggesting that the situation has become so absurd that quotes from the other side, even from those who might seem like unlikely allies, could be used to illustrate the inconsistencies.
The situation is viewed by some as an opportunity to expose the failings of the opposing party. There’s the thought that these ads are critical in showing how far things have gone. The use of propaganda on the other side is perceived to be worsening, and the sooner people are awakened to this reality, the better, some argue. There’s also some frustration at what has been perceived as a surrender in Ontario, which has led to questions regarding potential future repercussions. The suggestion is that perhaps there will be repercussions for the future dealings with the party across the border.
The effectiveness of such campaigns is a serious question, of course. Some believe that these ads, if launched, would be more effective if they were targeted towards the right demographic. There’s a recognition that many Americans might not be fully aware of the specifics of Canadian goods or the impact of trade wars. The focus then shifts to the crucial importance of highlighting what Canada exports, and how such trade conflicts negatively affect people on both sides of the border. Concerns are raised about the impact of the trade war on Canada’s economy, as some would argue it is leading to job losses and a reliance on external factors, such as China. The argument here is that the money spent on advertising is a waste because of the ineffectiveness of the other side.
Some express concern that those who don’t already understand the issue of tariffs won’t care, especially if their preferred news sources are supportive of the opposing argument. The point here is that the ad spending may be a waste of resources, and this would mean the same as it was for the earlier ads that the government launched. The use of an ad is being used as a distraction from larger issues, such as the rising costs of goods and erosion of public services.
The ads are seen by some as an illustration of how unreliable and potentially detrimental a trade agreement with certain parties can be. The ability to abruptly change policies based on personal feelings is seen as a major impediment to a productive business relationship. The lack of concrete reasoning behind increased tariffs is also highlighted. The argument here is that there is no true justification, only personal slights, and the amount of money spent on an ad seems like a small price to pay to fight back.
There is a sense that negotiations with the opposing party are inherently unproductive, particularly if the response is seen as being based on ego. The call is for countries to directly communicate with the people, bypassing what they see as a corrupt system. The idea here is to make deals with the people directly. This kind of communication can work, and is very important.
The idea that the opposing side is largely insulated from the full impact of their own policies is echoed by some. The truth is what’s needed. The use of truth and spamming the truth to those that are being gaslit by their own governments is a tactic that can work.
Some see this as a necessary move, while others suggest it will not work. Some would rather see their own country take an economic hit, rather than bow down. It’s important to not give in to threats, as that will only make the threats more frequent. The idea here is that there are many different things that Canada can do, and the fight is real.
The ad worked. It got the attention of all the major news outlets Trump’s moaning about it got $100 million of free air time on news shows, and millions more people to see the ad.
Americans pay tariffs, so Trump has raised the tax on Americans another 10%.
The ad couldn’t have been more successful.
The idea that many Americans have no idea that they are, in fact, the ones paying the tariffs is a recurring theme. The prevailing view is that there is a large amount of the opposing party that would believe any statement. There are many real-world examples of how the cost of living has skyrocketed in that country. The belief is that Canadians are doing the right thing, in light of the issues.
It’s important to realize that there is a lot that Canada could do. This includes things like tolls on the roadways, and the cutting off of power exports. The options are there. However, the point is that these actions might negatively impact both countries. At a certain point, though, some see these actions as necessary.