NO WORDS!

 

Hoekstra: "Persona non grata!"

 Sal, my question today is... if the US ambassador comes here and starts insulting the trade negotiators face-to-face and swearing at them, contrary to all diplomatic niceties, would it be a good idea to rescind his credentials and kick him out of the country?

Sal said:

Short answer: Yes — Canada has the legal right to declare a foreign ambassador persona non grata and expel them, but whether it would be a good idea depends on political costs, proportionality, and the options tried first. 

Below, I’ll explain the law, the likely consequences (positive and negative), and a practical, risk-aware playbook you could follow if decision-makers wanted to act.

---

Legal/technical authority

• Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) a receiving state may at any time declare a member of a diplomatic mission persona non grata; the sending state is then expected to recall that person or terminate their functions. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

• Canada implemented related rules in domestic law (Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act); Canadian authorities therefore have the legal mechanisms to declare diplomats non grata under national practice as well. Justice Laws

---

What “expel the ambassador” actually means (short)

1. Formal diplomatic step: the receiving state notifies the sending state the ambassador is persona non grata; the sending state normally recalls them. Wikipedia+1

2. If the sending state refuses, the receiving state can refuse to recognize the person as part of the mission (practically: remove diplomatic privileges, bar them from performing duties). United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

---

Pros (why a government might do it)

• Strong official rebuke: sends a clear, unmistakable message that the conduct is unacceptable and protects national dignity. Wikipedia

• Domestic political benefit: can placate public or political outrage and show the government is defending national interests. cips-cepi.ca

• Sets a precedent deterring future public breaches of diplomatic norms.

---

Cons / risks (why it can be costly)

• Tit-for-tat expulsions: the sending state often responds in kind, expelling an equivalent number of the host country’s diplomats — escalating the diplomatic spat. This is common practice. Wikipedia+1

• Damage to channels of communication: removing the ambassador reduces direct, high-level communications at a time when dialogue may be needed to manage disputes. Taylor & Francis Online

• Economic and trade fallout: diplomatic breakdowns can harm trade and investment ties, and research shows diplomatic tensions can have heterogeneous but real negative effects on trade. SpringerLink

• Loss of leverage vs. long-term relationship costs: an expulsion is irreversible in the short term and may make reconciliation harder unless both sides de-escalate. CORE

---

Practical considerations & proportionality

• International practice treats persona non grata as a serious measure reserved for major or repeated breaches (espionage, criminal acts, sustained interference). Governments are typically cautious about using it for a single incident unless it is particularly egregious. tlcp.law.uiowa.edu+1

• If the ambassador simply insulted negotiators in a heated exchange yesterday, many governments would first use less severe tools (see below) before resorting to expulsion.

---

Recommended stepwise playbook (risk-aware)

1. Immediate, formal protest: summon the ambassador to the foreign ministry and deliver a formal note of protest documenting the remarks. (Fast, low escalation.) Wikipedia

2. Public statement and demand for apology: publicize the protest and ask for an apology or clarification. This puts diplomatic pressure on the sending state.

3. Limit diplomatic access/engagements: suspend high-level engagement or bilateral working groups temporarily (targeted, reversible). Taylor & Francis Online

4. Escalate proportionately if no remedy: if the ambassador refuses to apologize and the conduct persists (or is institutional), consider declaring them persona non grata — but prepare for reciprocal measures. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs+1

5. Coordinate with allies / multilateral venues: if the conduct threatens norms, coordinate response with like-minded partners so Canada isn’t isolated and the costs are spread. Brill

---

When expulsion might be the right move

• The ambassador’s behaviour is part of a pattern of interference, threats, or sustained insults that undermine diplomatic norms; or

• The remarks were so abusive, profane, or violent that they make continued presence intolerable; or

• Domestic political imperatives make inaction politically impossible and other measures have failed. In such cases, expulsion is a legitimate sovereign tool — but expect and plan for reciprocal diplomatic and possibly economic responses. tlcp.law.uiowa.edu+1

---

If policymakers choose to expel: operational tips

• Time the announcement to minimize surprising allied partners; brief key allies first. Brill

• Explain reasoning clearly in a short government statement (cite specific behaviour and prior steps taken). This helps justify proportionality to domestic and international audiences.

• Be ready with contingency plans for trade, consular services, and intelligence/communication gaps. SpringerLink

---

Bottom line (my assessment)

• Legally: Canada can do it. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs+1

• Politically/practically: it’s a serious, escalatory move that should be used sparingly and usually only after other diplomatic remedies fail. A single rude, profane encounter might justify a strong public rebuke and suspension of talks — but expulsion is best reserved for repeated or particularly egregious conduct or where domestic political exigency makes inaction impossible. cips-cepi.ca+1

---

If you want, I can:

• Draft a short, formal statement Canada might issue if it were to declare the ambassador persona non grata (two lengths: brief public line & longer official note to the U.S.); or

• Draft the formal note verbale (diplomatic wording) to deliver to the U.S. Embassy; or

• Pull together historical examples of expulsions (Canada and other states) so you can see precedent and likely retaliatory patterns.

Which of those would be most useful right now?

You said:

Draft a short, formal statement Canada might issue if it were to declare the ambassador persona non grata (two lengths: brief public line & longer official note to the U.S.); or Draft the formal note verbale (diplomatic wording) to deliver to the U.S. Embassy;

Sal said:

Here are the three drafts you asked for — all phrased in authentic diplomatic language that Canada could actually use.

Each increases in formality and length.

---

🇨🇦 1. Brief Public Statement (Press / Media Line)

Government of Canada Statement on U.S. Ambassador

The Government of Canada has declared the Ambassador of the United States of America persona non grata following conduct that was inconsistent with the standards of diplomatic respect expected between our two nations.

Canada remains committed to maintaining a constructive relationship with the United States and looks forward to continued dialogue with Washington through appropriate channels.

(Tone: calm, restrained, signals firmness without inflammatory language.)

---

🇨🇦 2. Official Diplomatic Note (Longer, Delivered to the U.S. State Department)

Note No. ___ / 2025

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to inform the Embassy that the conduct of His Excellency the Ambassador during the recent business meeting in Halifax was inconsistent with accepted norms of diplomatic behaviour and incompatible with the maintenance of mutual respect between our two governments.

The Government of Canada, after careful consideration, has therefore decided to declare His Excellency persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Government of the United States is requested to recall the Ambassador, or otherwise terminate his functions in Canada, within a period of seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of this Note.

The Government of Canada reaffirms its commitment to the long-standing friendship and alliance between Canada and the United States, and expresses its wish that normal diplomatic relations continue without interruption at the working level.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of America the assurances of its highest consideration.

Ottawa, ____ October 2025

To the Embassy of the United States of America

Ottawa

(Tone: formal, cites the Vienna Convention, specifies recall timeline — standard diplomatic structure.)

---

🇨🇦 3. Formal Note Verbale (Delivered by Hand to U.S. Embassy in Ottawa)

Note Verbale

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to inform the Embassy that, pursuant to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the Government of Canada has declared His Excellency [Full Name], Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Canada, persona non grata.

This action follows statements and behaviour by the Ambassador that were inconsistent with the norms of diplomatic decorum and respect traditionally maintained between our two nations.

The Government of Canada requests that His Excellency depart the territory of Canada within seventy-two (72) hours of the receipt of this Note.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of America the assurances of its highest consideration.

Ottawa, ____ October 2025

Embassy of the United States of America, Ottawa

---

Sal said: Would you like me to prepare a public press-conference version as well — the kind of short, calm statement the Foreign Minister or PM might read aloud to the media (30–40 seconds, designed for broadcast)?

You said:

Yes!

Sal said:

Here is the press-conference version — concise, neutral, and designed for television or official broadcast. It’s written in the style typically used by the Canadian foreign minister or government spokesperson.

---

🎙️ Press Conference Statement (Broadcast Version)

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs

“Good afternoon.

Today, following recent remarks made by the United States Ambassador in Halifax, the Government of Canada has declared the ambassador persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

This decision was not taken lightly. Canada values its long and close partnership with the United States, and we remain committed to cooperation on trade, security, and the many issues that bind our two nations.

However, when statements or behaviour cross the bounds of diplomatic decorum and show open disrespect to Canadian officials, we have a duty to act.

We look forward to continuing our dialogue with Washington and to welcoming a representative who will uphold the mutual respect that has long characterized Canada–U.S. relations.

Thank you.”

 ME ON THE RADIO! (When I was younger!)

Canada's Gripen Purchase Would Turn the Tables on the U.S.!

This is what will "Trip-Up-Trump!" (Dump Trump!)

Donald had better be very careful! There are only two countries giving the United States any grief about tariffs (everybody else folded), and that's China and Canada!

Here's the big difference, kids... China supplies the States with stuff they WANT! (Toys, clothes, consumer goods, electronics, etc.) 

In the long run... Canada supplies the States with things they NEED! (Oil, gas, uranium, precious metals, cars and trucks, electricity, fertilizer, softwood lumber... and a manufacturing capacity that is totally integrated with the United States!)

Canada has the upper hand, kids, not Drumpf!!!!!!

More truth from an American!

Made in Canada Official!

 

An open letter written by a Florida judge about the CANADA/USA relationships & history.

By Robert Meadows (Circuit Court Judge, Florida).

Here is one American’s take on the growing trade war between the US and Canada.

"Have you ever stopped to consider how lucky we Americans are to have the neighbours we have? 

Look around the globe at who some folks have been stuck sharing a border with over the past half century:

North Korea / South Korea

Greece / Turkey

Iran / Iraq

Israel / Palestine

India / Pakistan

China / Russia

"We’ve got Canada! 

Canada. About as inoffensive a neighbour as you could ever hope for! 

In spite of all our boasts of “American exceptionalism” and chants of “America first,” they just smile, do their thing and go about their business. 

They are on average more educated, have a higher standard of living, free health care, and almost no gun problems. 

They treat immigrants respectfully and have already taken in over 35,000 Syrians in the last two years.

"They’re with us in NATO, they fought alongside us in World War I, World War II, Korea, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, Afghanistan, the Kosovo War and came to our defence after 9/11. (There was that one time when Canada took a pass on one of our wars: Vietnam. Turned out to be a good call!)

"They’ve been steady consumers of American imports, reliable exporters of metals and petroleum products (they are the biggest importer of U.S. products from 37 states), and partnered with NASA in our space missions.

"During 9/11, many aircraft were diverted to Newfoundland, an island province off Canada's east coast, where Americans were housed in people's homes for two weeks and treated like royalty. 

In return for their hospitality, this administration slapped a 20% tariff on the products of Newfoundland's only paper mill, thereby threatening its survival.

"And what do Canadians expect of us in return? 

To be respected for who and what they are: Canadians. 

That’s what I call a good neighbour!

"But the King of Chaos couldn’t leave well enough alone. 

Based on his delusions of perpetual victimhood, out of the clear blue, he’s declared economic war on Canada. 

On CANADA! 

And he did it based on Canada being a national security risk to the US! 

For no good reason, other than the voices in his head that told him it was a war he could win. 

So why not do it, then?

"Again, we’re talking about Canada. Our closest ally, friend and neighbour!!!!!

"On behalf of an embarrassed nation, people of Canada, I apologize for this idiotic and wholly unnecessary attack. Please leave the back channels open. We the People of progressive persuasion stand with you."  By Robert Meadows (Circuit Court Judge, Florida).

Maine Senator wants to Assimilate Western Canada!

For those who haven’t heard... about a week ago... a Member of British Columbia's Legislative Assembly... Brennan Day, made public that the American Senator Joseph E. Martin of Maine sent an invitation to all elected officials in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba to join the U.S.A!

A Maine State senator named Joseph E. Martin sent letters to Western Canadian MLAs.  In those letters, he laid out how Canada should join the United States. He said our provinces would benefit under the Great Constitution, and he even explained how ties to Canada would have to be given up... and how Canadians would need to assimilate to become US citizens.

"Maine State Senator Joseph Martin thought he could lecture Canada with a letter telling us how to give up our sovereignty and assimilate into the United States!" 

What he didn’t expect was the response!

By the hundreds, if not thousands, Canadians sent him emails and phone calls calling his letter ignorant, disrespectful, and completely out of touch. 

Many of those powerful messages prove Canadians are standing together!

It wasn’t just Canadians either. 

Citizens from the UK and Germany also joined in... sending their own replies... and showing that Canada has international allies who see right through this 51st state rhetoric and Trump-style annexation talk!

Here's what this guy is suggesting:

Meanwhile, a lot of delusional Canadians are suggesting THIS map!

BUT...

A more realistic map would look like this:

That's right, Bunky... Alaska and Maine should join Canada as our 11th and 12th Provinces... While Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands should become Canadian Territories!

***

That would give us 12 Provinces and 5 Territories... which means we would control the top half of North America!

And what about the Turks and Caicos... you ask?

Well... Everyone needs somewhere to go in the winter... and it sure ain't gonna be Florida or Arizona!

Forget Drumpf... We've got a Great Plan for North America!

When you look at a map of the world, it is usually out of proportion... because it's taken from a round globe onto a flat picture... and this distorts the true size of everything!

Here is a Global Map with the right proportions!

 

NOW... Here's North America in the proper perspective!

THEN: We are going to hold a referendum in Alaska and Maine to see if they want to join Canada...! (And throw in Pt. Roberts!)

Then we will approach Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands to become two of our territories... (That's a total of twelve Provinces and five Territories!)

***

First of all... even though we have a lot more land than the States... most of it is too damned cold to do any good... so we're all jammed up in the bottom (southern) part... and second... we need the Turks and Caicos Islands for when winter gets to be... 'too much!'

ROD STEWART DOES TORONTO !

This Truth Shall Set America Free!

This should be Canada's next fighter-jet!

Another Heat Wave!

 

ALASKA AND MAINE SET TO HOLD A VOTE ON JOINING CANADA!

MEANWHILE... 

Greenland and the Turks and Caicos Islands in the Caribbean... 

Want to join as territories!!!

Canadian Wildfires!!!

WASHINGTON — Six Republican lawmakers have sent a letter to Canada's ambassador calling for action on the wildfires sending smoke billowing across the international border into their states. 

 In a Tuesday letter to Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman, representatives Tom Tiffany, Brad Finstad, Tom Emmer, Michelle Fischbach, Glenn Grothman and Pete Stauber of Wisconsin and Minnesota said their constituents are coping with suffocating smoke from Canadian wildfires. 

 "As we are entering the height of the fire season, we would like to know how your government plans on mitigating wildfires and the smoke that makes its way south," the letter said. 

 The lawmakers said successive years of wildfires in Canada have undermined air quality in their states and robbed Americans of their ability to enjoy the summer!!!!

O.K. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO FOLKS...

Blow the smoke over the North Pole to Russia!!!!

(NOTE: We are doing this because of our long friendship with the United States... 

...and we don't wish to upset them!)

P.S. Since Americans, in general,  are much dumber than Canadians... 

...go to Google and look up... "Irony" and "Satire!"

Saturday Morning Confusion!

 JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION.

HAPPY CANADA DAY!!!!

 

TRADE UPS AND DOWNS!

Trump just broke off trade talks with Canada so I went to my personal A.I. SAL-9000 and asked:

Sal, with the current trade deal negotiations between Canada and the U.S., would it be a better idea to remove all trade barriers and tariffs? What would be the advantages and disadvantages of that?

SAL said:

Completely removing all trade barriers and tariffs between Canada and the U.S. would be a bold shift—here’s a nuanced look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a move:

---

✅ Advantages of removing all trade barriers

1. Economic efficiency & consumer gains

• Without tariffs, the principle of comparative advantage allows each country to specialize, increasing output and overall welfare heritage.org+15en.wikipedia.org+15m.economictimes.com+15.

• Canadian consumers would benefit from lower prices on U.S. goods (and vice versa), reducing inflation pressures. The Bank of Canada noted that tariff-induced cost increases could significantly feed into consumer prices reuters.com.

2. Boost to trade and growth

• Canada is the U.S.'s second-largest trading partner, responsible for ~75% of Canadian exports barrons.com+15m.economictimes.com+15facebook.com+15. Removing tariffs could increase export volumes, helping GDP and supporting jobs.

• The Bank of Canada estimated U.S. tariffs alone could shave 1.1% off Canada’s GDP; elimination would help avert this downside bankofcanada.ca+15m.economictimes.com+15reuters.com+15.

3. Supply chain stability

• Integrated supply chains—especially in sectors like automobiles, energy, metals—would function more efficiently, boosting competitiveness axios.com+15energypolicy.columbia.edu+15blackbuckinc.com+15.

4. Strengthened bilateral relations

• A barrier-free regime would ease tensions over digital‑tax and dairy conflicts, reducing retaliatory threats and fostering cooperation.

5. Attracting investment

• Predictable, open markets are a magnet for investment. Businesses are more confident planning cross‑border operations without trade frictions.

---

⚠️ Disadvantages and challenges

1. Loss of protected sectors

• Industries currently shielded—like Canadian dairy, poultry, and eggs under supply‑management—would face intense competition from U.S. producers ft.com+7ft.com+7wsj.com+7en.wikipedia.org.

• Similarly, U.S. steel, aluminum, and manufacturing sectors could suffer.

2. Adjustment costs

• Freeing trade could cause short‑term dislocation in sensitive industries, requiring job retraining and social support. While in the long run gains offset these effects, the short‑term pain can be politically challenging en.wikipedia.org.

3. Loss of revenue and policy tools

• Tariffs currently provide some government revenue and can be used strategically, for example in negotiating digital‑tax concessions. Removing them limits flexibility.

4. Political backlash

• Sudden liberalization could provoke backlash in regions with vulnerable industries, triggering populist or protectionist pushback (as seen with Trump’s 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs) theaustralian.com.au+1axios.com+1.

5. Strategic leverage lost

• Tariffs are a bargaining chip in broader negotiations. Without them, it may be harder to secure concessions on issues like digital services taxation.

---

🌐 The bigger picture: the USMCA and WTO context

Under USMCA and WTO, most goods already cross tariff-free—exceptions include autos, dairy, steel, and aluminum (where tariffs were imposed in early 2025) ft.com+4apnews.com+4axios.com+4ft.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3en.wikipedia.org+3. Complete removal would likely require treaty renegotiation (e.g., USMCA review due in 2026). However, full free trade would maximize the economic benefits from integrated markets.

---

🧩 Summary

Pros	Cons
Consumer price relief, inflation control	Disruption to protected and strategic industries
GDP growth, trade volume increases	Short-term job losses & adjustment costs
Streamlined cross-border supply chains	Loss of policy flexibility and revenue
Stronger Canada-U.S. partnership	Potential political backlash

---

👥 Is it a “better idea”?

Economically, yes—the consensus among economists favours free trade for its efficiency gains and growth benefits. 

Politically and socially, the reality is more complex:

• You’d need transition policies: training programs, targeted support, and phased liberalization to ease industry adjustment.

• Negotiating side agreements could protect genuinely vulnerable sectors (e.g., supply‑managed agriculture) while opening others.

• Both governments must manage domestic political pressures to avoid backlash.

---

🔄 Bottom line

Removing all trade barriers could unlock significant economic benefits, including stronger growth, lower prices, and deeper integration. But success hinges on managing the inevitable disruptions and crafting compensatory policies to support affected sectors. If both countries are willing to negotiate thoughtfully, a phased, strategic removal could ultimately be a win-win