With the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th president of the United States, how to appropriately respond to his administration’s initiatives — not the rumoured initiatives but the actual ones — becomes a highly relevant question for Canadians and our governments.
Unfortunately, a goodly portion of Canada’s political and media establishment got off on the wrong foot by responding foolishly rather than sensibly to Trump’s initial musings about Canada becoming a 51st state with Wayne Gretzky as governor. Instead of simply dismissing this as just another off-the-cuff joke for which Trump is notorious, much of the Canadian establishment took it seriously, giving it much more attention than it deserved.
And then there is the even more foolish response to Trump’s 25 per cent tariff threat by the stumbling Trudeau government — a government which is afraid to meet Parliament, whose leadership is seriously divided and, according to the polls, has the support of merely 20 per cent of the Canadian population.
Trudeau hastily assembled the premiers and announced the next week that he had taken a “a Team Canada approach” which already shows signs of falling apart. The collective response of Canada to the expected Trump tariffs was then, predictably, declared to be a negative one involving the imposition of counter-tariffs.
Premier Doug Ford stated that counter-tariffs would be Ontario’s primary response, even before it was known what specific tariffs Trump was proposing. Premier David Eby of B.C. hysterically proclaimed that his province was preparing for “economic war” with the U.S. And Liberal leadership candidate Chrystia Freeland — the former finance minister who left the country with a $60-billion deficit and whom Trump most likely regards as the Canadian equivalent of Kamala Harris — trumpeted that she was the best person to lead Team Canada in its future relationship with the U.S.
But is not all of the above largely foolishness? Does not a common-sense approach to the tariff threat suggest going back to square 1 and analyzing it in the context in which it first was made?
Trump initially made tariff threats for the stated purpose of forcing Canada and Mexico to get serious about stopping the uncontrolled and illegal movement of unwanted migrants into the U.S.
Common sense then suggests that Canada’s initial response to Trump’s tariff threat should have been positive rather than negative, and that the Canadian response to the new Trump administration should have prioritized measures to stop the violation of U.S. borders by illegal migrants.
What needed to be said was this: “Here is what Canada’s federal and provincial governments are doing to stop this illegal activity and what we (Canada and the U.S.) can do cooperatively to secure North America from this threat.” No need now to threaten tariffs and retaliatory counter-tariffs, so let’s get on to some real business.
Trump being a businessman (of sorts) and a dealmaker, common sense further suggests bringing a positive response to an item which clearly is on Trump’s agenda and which also happens to be very much in Canada’s interest: energy security. This is a subject dear to Trump’s heart, referenced in his inaugural address, and a front on which Canada can lead from its strengths, not its fears.
There are few economic fronts on which Canada surpasses the U.S., but the truth is that, as the second-largest nation on Earth by land mass, Canada possesses some of the largest stocks of natural resources on the planet.
Thus surely common sense suggests that the most important component of Canada’s response to the Trump administration should be making North America more self-sufficient, especially with respect to energy.
Even our present prime minister has been obliged to belatedly reference this strength, but unfortunately, it is a subject on which his tattered Liberal government has zero credibility. For nine years it has most often treated the resource sectors — energy, agriculture, mining, forestry and the fisheries — as relics from the past and even environmental liabilities. It has opposed or delayed every major infrastructure project designed to increase our energy export potential — vetoing Northern Gateway in 2016, stalling Energy East until it was cancelled in 2017, making little effort to overcome roadblocks to pipeline construction in B.C. and imposing unconstitutional barriers to petroleum production through legislation such as Bill C-69, also known as the “No More Pipelines Act.”
No doubt some of Trump’s advisors will also remind him that in Canada, natural resources are first and foremost a provincial responsibility with private-sector entities playing a major role in their development.
Finally, of the various players on the political stage over the last month, who has most consistently articulated this common-sense response to the issues raised by the Trump administration? Certainly not our prime minister or any of the candidates to replace him. Rather, that voice of common sense has been Alberta Premier Danielle Smith. For that reason, she should be strongly supported and joined by those like-minded.
National Post
Preston Manning, a former Alberta MP and federal Opposition leader, founded the Reform Party of Canada.