Time to step off the tightrope

Yesterday, Donald Trump carried out his threat to impose a 25% tariff on all Canadian imports, except energy which will face a 10% tariff. It is a betrayal of epic proportions.

The US Constitution (for what it’s worth) gives Congress authority to impose taxes, tariffs, and other revenue. Over time, Congress has given the President authority to negotiate trade agreements and impose tariffs in times of national emergency. The tariffs announced yesterday were under the authority of legislation that allows the president to act in response to “any unusual and extraordinary threat … to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat.”

The threat, in this instance, is the 19 kilograms of fentanyl that was intercepted crossing the Canadian border into the US last year. To put this in perspective, I’m pretty confident I could carry the full year’s exports in a backpack on a fairly long hike. And as an oldish lady with a bad achilles, I’d be a ‘DEI hire’ for smugglers!

Canada has now committed some $1.3 billion to monitoring the border. That works out to roughly $68 million per kilogram. Is Trump aware of our investment? Of course he is, even though he won’t take our calls.

It’s evident that fentanyl is merely a pretext, a fig leaf to cover Trump’s naked exercise of extra-constitutional authority. (Yes, I’m very sorry for putting that image in your head).

On Truth Social this morning, he opined that the United States pays “hundreds of Billions of Dollars to SUBSIDIZE Canada.” (Paying someone for goods or services is a subsidy only if you own those goods and services already. Perhaps this is a ‘tell’). Then he goes on: “without this massive subsidy, Canada ceases to exist as a viable Country.” And then he returns to his idea that “Canada should become our Cherished 51st State.”¹

I have resisted the idea that Trump actually has designs on annexing Canada, or at least that his designs are not merely a passing thought that will soon be replaced with something else. But at a certain point, when someone tells you who they are, you do have to start believing them.² And I can’t help thinking that a real estate mogul who knows that climate change is real would see value in land “up north.”

In the face of all of this, Alberta’s Premier yesterday put out a statement supporting targeted use of retaliatory tariffs, opposing use of export taxes or bans on export of strategic goods, and calling for appointment of a border czar and increasing military spending. The statement goes on to call for pipelines and LNG terminals and concludes with this: “Alberta stands ready to do our part if this true Team Canada approach is taken.” [emphasis added]

Premier Smith has walked a tightrope since Trump started musing about “tariffing” Canada.³ Some of her political supporters would pick Trump over Trudeau if forced to choose, but the mainstream of the province is inclined to see itself as ‘both Canadian and Albertan.’

Yesterday’s statement keeps Smith on the tightrope, articulating a conditional allegiance to Canada at a moment when many (elsewhere in the country, but also in Alberta) are waving the maple leaf and gearing up for economic warfare.

Smith’s decision to go to Washington for Trump’s inauguration and to build relationships with Republican governors is grounded in a set of assumptions that would be entirely reasonable under other circumstances. A president concerned about political backlash on him/his party or the welfare of his citizens might be convinced by arguments about the inflationary cost of tariffs. A president constrained by Congress would hesitate to alienate the country’s most loyal ally or to exercise unconstitutional power. But Trump is largely unconstrained. While Republican members of congress and governors might nod sympathetically when they hear Alberta’s arguments, none of them appear willing to defy the Orange King.

Smith’s repeated insistence that Canada must do what Trump wants looks increasingly naive. It was reasonable for Canada to take Trump at his word that the border was the issue. But his decision to ignore our efforts and impose tariffs anyway makes it clear that his decisions are entirely unrelated to the fig-leaf rationale he’s offering. We could appoint a small army of border czars and purchase a flotilla of military ice breakers, but Trump would persist.⁴

In the face of the President’s intransigence and expressions of expansionary ambitions, the Smith government must reconsider its charm offensive. Jetting off to Washington to pray with the political leaders who are enabling Trump through their inaction is as tone deaf as a trip to Hawaii in the middle of a pandemic.

Smith and many Albertans have experienced Canadian energy and environment policy under Trudeau as a series of betrayals. For the most part, I don’t share that view, but I can understand it. It’s this sense of betrayal that stands in the way of an unconditional endorsement of Team Canada. This would be a moment for a new federal government to find some way to build trust and reopen dialogue.

That said, Albertans need to give careful consideration to the question of whether they are willing to exchange the benefits of being Canadian (like rule of law, a functional democracy, and public healthcare) for unfettered access to the American market. Our government, I believe, must step off the tightrope and join Team Canada, unconditionally.

1. Random capitalizations from the original.

2. Corey Hogan reached this conclusion weeks ago. This is worth a read: “So Donald Trump Has Decided to Annex Your Country”

3. In addition to his multiple sins of random capitalization, I hold Trump personally responsible for the growing use of ‘tariff’ as a transitive verb.

4. Here’s a silver lining: our military spending as a proportion of GDP is almost certainly going to increase. If we keep the numerator constant but decrease the denominator, the number goes up!