Smith is fighting Ottawa rather than Trump’s tariff. This will cost us all
Duane Bratt
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Yesterday
For Subscribers
Duane Bratt is a political science professor in the department of economics, justice and policy studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith did not attend Wednesday’s meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Canada’s other premiers in person, but she appeared virtually. Then she skipped the news conference afterward, refused to sign a joint statement and released a contrary statement.
It was clear that as Team Canada was strategizing on how to address U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s threatened 25-per-cent tariff against Canada, the team was – and still is – missing one province. This is not surprising, but still very disappointing. Moreover, Ms. Smith’s actions will not protect Alberta from the weight of Mr. Trump’s attack.
When Ms. Smith won the United Conservative Party leadership in October, 2022, and became Alberta’s Premier, it was largely due to her signature policy proposal: standing up to Ottawa to defend Alberta’s oil and gas sector. The province’s Sovereignty Act was the first bill she introduced as Premier.
Although the Sovereignty Act was watered down from its campaign version and ultimately became just a symbolic move, it set the tone for Ms. Smith’s time in office. For 2½ years, she has repeatedly sued the federal government over its Impact Assessment Act, emissions-reduction strategy, carbon tax and other federal legislation and regulations she believes have, or will have, adverse effects on Alberta’s oil and gas sector. She has also used fiery rhetoric against Mr. Trudeau and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.
The difference now is that Ms. Smith is opposing retaliatory actions Canada could use to respond to Mr. Trump’s tariff threat.
Given the devastating impact a 25-per-cent U.S. tariff would have on the Canadian economy, Canada needs to consider all possible options. And energy exports (oil, natural gas and electricity) are the most effective weapon this country has in its tool box. But Ms. Smith wants absolutely no talk of an energy embargo or of a Canadian export tax on energy.
Other energy-exporting provinces – British Columbia (natural gas), Saskatchewan (oil and uranium), Manitoba (electricity), Ontario (electricity), Quebec (electricity) and Newfoundland (oil) – have not made the same ultimatums. They realize we are in the toughest situation with the United States since the 19th century, and we need to consider all options. But not Ms. Smith.
In a fight between Canada and the U.S., Ms. Smith appears to be taking the side of Mr. Trump. She met in person with him at Mar-a-Lago, but she did not do the same with Canadian political leaders. While Ms. Smith has strongly criticized Prime Minister Trudeau and other provinces, she has refrained from criticizing Mr. Trump. While she has been developing plans on how to stymie Canada’s retaliation, she has not been doing the same thing against Mr. Trump’s tariff.
Even the graphic that accompanied Ms. Smith’s contrary statement was revealing. The U.S. Stars and Stripes were prominent, but Canada’s Maple Leaf was covered up. In addition, the headline read “No Ottawa Tariffs on Alberta Energy Exports.” It made no mention of Mr. Trump’s tariff threat. It was as if Ottawa were considering tariffs on energy exports for no reason whatsoever.
On Mr. Trump’s inauguration day on Jan. 20, he will likely sign an executive order declaring a national emergency that will justify his tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China. Soon afterward, Canada will announce phase one of its retaliation. I expect Ms. Smith will put out a statement criticizing the Canadian retaliation, but not the Trump tariffs.
Besides trying to protect Alberta’s oil and gas sector, Ms. Smith is aligned with Mr. Trump on many policy issues: climate change, COVID-19, transgender rights and gun ownership. In addition, many of her UCP MLAs and supporters are fans of Mr. Trump. When the Angus Reid Institute polled Canadians about joining the U.S. (in response to Mr. Trump’s repeated 51st-state mockery), the highest percentage who agreed were Albertans. It was just 18 per cent, but those 18 per cent are concentrated within the UCP.
However, Ms. Smith’s support for Mr. Trump, as she acknowledged the day after meeting with him in Mar-a-Lago, will not protect Alberta from Mr. Trump’s tariff threat. Alberta’s oil sector would still be hit by a 25-per-cent tariff on Jan. 20. Albertans who work in export industries that are not oil and gas – say, canola farmers or beef ranchers – must feel especially abandoned because Ms. Smith never mentions any other sector besides oil and gas.
Even Albertans who do not work in an export sector would be hurt by a Canada-wide recession that would not spare their province. If anything, Alberta could be hit even harder because of a rise in the price differential between Western Canadian Select and more expensive West Texas Intermediate crude.
Ms. Smith’s support of Mr. Trump will cost us all.
?
Duane Bratt
Special to The Globe and Mail
Published Yesterday
For Subscribers
Duane Bratt is a political science professor in the department of economics, justice and policy studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith did not attend Wednesday’s meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Canada’s other premiers in person, but she appeared virtually. Then she skipped the news conference afterward, refused to sign a joint statement and released a contrary statement.
It was clear that as Team Canada was strategizing on how to address U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s threatened 25-per-cent tariff against Canada, the team was – and still is – missing one province. This is not surprising, but still very disappointing. Moreover, Ms. Smith’s actions will not protect Alberta from the weight of Mr. Trump’s attack.
When Ms. Smith won the United Conservative Party leadership in October, 2022, and became Alberta’s Premier, it was largely due to her signature policy proposal: standing up to Ottawa to defend Alberta’s oil and gas sector. The province’s Sovereignty Act was the first bill she introduced as Premier.
Although the Sovereignty Act was watered down from its campaign version and ultimately became just a symbolic move, it set the tone for Ms. Smith’s time in office. For 2½ years, she has repeatedly sued the federal government over its Impact Assessment Act, emissions-reduction strategy, carbon tax and other federal legislation and regulations she believes have, or will have, adverse effects on Alberta’s oil and gas sector. She has also used fiery rhetoric against Mr. Trudeau and Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault.
The difference now is that Ms. Smith is opposing retaliatory actions Canada could use to respond to Mr. Trump’s tariff threat.
Given the devastating impact a 25-per-cent U.S. tariff would have on the Canadian economy, Canada needs to consider all possible options. And energy exports (oil, natural gas and electricity) are the most effective weapon this country has in its tool box. But Ms. Smith wants absolutely no talk of an energy embargo or of a Canadian export tax on energy.
Other energy-exporting provinces – British Columbia (natural gas), Saskatchewan (oil and uranium), Manitoba (electricity), Ontario (electricity), Quebec (electricity) and Newfoundland (oil) – have not made the same ultimatums. They realize we are in the toughest situation with the United States since the 19th century, and we need to consider all options. But not Ms. Smith.
In a fight between Canada and the U.S., Ms. Smith appears to be taking the side of Mr. Trump. She met in person with him at Mar-a-Lago, but she did not do the same with Canadian political leaders. While Ms. Smith has strongly criticized Prime Minister Trudeau and other provinces, she has refrained from criticizing Mr. Trump. While she has been developing plans on how to stymie Canada’s retaliation, she has not been doing the same thing against Mr. Trump’s tariff.
Even the graphic that accompanied Ms. Smith’s contrary statement was revealing. The U.S. Stars and Stripes were prominent, but Canada’s Maple Leaf was covered up. In addition, the headline read “No Ottawa Tariffs on Alberta Energy Exports.” It made no mention of Mr. Trump’s tariff threat. It was as if Ottawa were considering tariffs on energy exports for no reason whatsoever.
On Mr. Trump’s inauguration day on Jan. 20, he will likely sign an executive order declaring a national emergency that will justify his tariffs against Canada, Mexico and China. Soon afterward, Canada will announce phase one of its retaliation. I expect Ms. Smith will put out a statement criticizing the Canadian retaliation, but not the Trump tariffs.
Besides trying to protect Alberta’s oil and gas sector, Ms. Smith is aligned with Mr. Trump on many policy issues: climate change, COVID-19, transgender rights and gun ownership. In addition, many of her UCP MLAs and supporters are fans of Mr. Trump. When the Angus Reid Institute polled Canadians about joining the U.S. (in response to Mr. Trump’s repeated 51st-state mockery), the highest percentage who agreed were Albertans. It was just 18 per cent, but those 18 per cent are concentrated within the UCP.
However, Ms. Smith’s support for Mr. Trump, as she acknowledged the day after meeting with him in Mar-a-Lago, will not protect Alberta from Mr. Trump’s tariff threat. Alberta’s oil sector would still be hit by a 25-per-cent tariff on Jan. 20. Albertans who work in export industries that are not oil and gas – say, canola farmers or beef ranchers – must feel especially abandoned because Ms. Smith never mentions any other sector besides oil and gas.
Even Albertans who do not work in an export sector would be hurt by a Canada-wide recession that would not spare their province. If anything, Alberta could be hit even harder because of a rise in the price differential between Western Canadian Select and more expensive West Texas Intermediate crude.
Ms. Smith’s support of Mr. Trump will cost us all.
?
Comment