Danielle Smith still wants us to surrender
Danielle Smith poses with Florida Senator Rick Scott at a pre-inauguration gala. So far, her attempts to flatter and cajole the Trump administration into lifting tariffs on Alberta's oil and gas haven't borne any fruit. Photo via X/Twitter
So much for that reprieve. The pro-appeasement Postmedia pundits and Conservative politicians in Canada hadn’t even completed their victory lap over the apparent postponement of Donald Trump’s promised tariffs when Trump himself announced that he’d changed his mind. “We’re thinking in terms of 25 per cent on Mexico and Canada,” he told reporters on Monday. “I think we’ll do it February 1.”
This comes as a particularly big blow to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who has been an enthusiastic and vocal proponent of surrendering to the incoming administration and its wildly incoherent whims. She has repeatedly broken with her provincial peers and the federal government, trying over and over to flatter Trump and his proxies into exempting Alberta’s oil and gas industry — a decision that would, it’s worth reiterating, inflict even more pain on its agriculture, forestry, and manufacturing sectors, not to mention the rest of the country’s economy.
She seems to believe there’s a win-win outcome available here, all evidence to the contrary. Never mind that Trump’s energy policies, which include his day-one decision to declare a “national energy emergency” aimed at boosting U.S. oil and gas production and reducing oil prices, are directly contrary to Alberta’s economic interests. “Americans want to have energy dominance globally, and I believe the best way for them to achieve that is for Canada to be a partner in that,” she said recently. “If their asks are reasonable, then let’s meet them halfway.”
But their asks aren’t even remotely reasonable, and meeting halfway is not their style. Trump has repeatedly framed his country’s trade deficit with Canada — one that’s entirely the result of our oil and gas exports — as a form of subsidy or even theft, and suggested that tariffs offer a risk-free way to remedy that. “Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” he said in his inaugural address.
In fairness to Smith, she’s not the only Conservative politician in Canada desperately trying to find new and innovative ways to surrender. BC Conservative leader John Rustad released a video blaming David Eby for the threats to his province’s prosperity and suggesting he ought to accept Trump’s false premises around border security that the federal government has already addressed. “David Eby is putting at risk the people in this province by threatening a trade war instead of actually figuring out how you work with the Americans. Ontario, Saskatchewan, and even Alberta are looking at how they work with the Americans, not ramping up the trade rhetoric,” Rustad said.
Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, declined to take a position on whether he’d support retaliatory tariffs against the Americans. Instead, he hopped in his imaginary time machine in order to duck the question and talk instead about how he would have approved pipelines like Northern Gateway and Energy East. Liberal leadership candidates Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland weren’t nearly as shy, with both calling for “dollar-for-dollar” retaliatory measures. "If you force our hand,” Freeland said at her Sunday campaign launch, “we'll inflict the biggest trade blow that the United States has ever endured."
And yet, for all of her failed attempts to placate and appease Trump, Smith still seems to think that more appeasement is the way to go — and that the real threat is somehow coming from Ottawa, not Washington. "It hurt me that they felt they could make that argument that Alberta should sacrifice our interests in order to try and advance some kind of trade war,” she told reporters on Monday. "I take a different approach. Let's stop fighting with each other and let's maybe try to remove some of the internal trade barriers and maybe my fellow premiers can stop blocking pipelines when we propose them."
The whole point here is to stop a trade war, not advance it. All the new pipelines in the world won’t help Canada or Alberta in the here and now, given how long it would take to build them. And there’s no universe where we can simultaneously increase our energy exports to the United States, as Smith has suggested repeatedly, and eliminate America’s trade deficit with Canada, as Trump has demanded. As UBC economist Kevin Milligan argued on Bluesky, there are no easy ways out here. “We're not weighing our pain vs their pain. We're trying to inflict pain on them to get the tariff removed, and taking some own-pain now is better than submitting.”
This is the point that surrender-curious Conservatives keep missing. Pitching Trump on some kind of win-win outcome, as Smith keeps trying to, is an affront to the way he sees the world. As Canadian writer Dan Gardner argued in a recent (and excellent) Substack, Trump’s position is that “mutually beneficial relationships are a tale believed by suckers. This is why Trump is so contemptuous of international trade and why his thinking about trade and trade deficits resembles the mercantilism that dominated the 18th century before economists in the 19th century showed that trade can make both parties better off.”
Canadian negotiators must heed the lessons of history — specifically the historical example of the Siege of Melos during the Peloponnesian War, Gardner writes. Appeals to justice and fairness on the part of the Athenians failed the Melosians, while their allies in Sparta disappeared when they were needed most. They learned too late, the only way to survive is to fight. “We need to make the bastard bleed,” Gardner writes. “We either threaten savage reprisals that hurt Trump and devastate us or we slowly get beaten into submission and penury.”
You’d think a political movement that worships at the altar of Winston Churchill — Smith’s government installed a new statue of him on the grounds of their government offices in downtown Calgary last summer — would understand this. As Churchill knew only too well, bullies don’t believe in things like diplomacy or decency, and demonstrations of weakness only invite more shows of strength on their part. Perhaps someone can commission a statue of Neville Chamberlain after this is over to help people remember that acquiescence isn’t the path to victory.
January 22nd 2025
Comments
The word “quisling” comes to mind
Jeeze even dying her hair didn't help her. Albertans must be 'finally' getting a bit embarrassed. Why aren't journalists and politicians talking about the issue of guns that make their way from the U.S. onto our streets to kill people? Our crime has obviously gone up in recent years, gun crime that is, and it is that porous border of theirs allowing them to slither in from the U.S. We don't want their gun culture because too many people die for no reason.
One would need self awareness to be embarrassed. This means Albertans are never embarrassed.
Trumps day one "national energy emergency" boosts U.S. O&G flies in the face of her efforts.
Meanwhile at Con headquarters - lying Poilievre can't make up his mind on what to do with Trump tariffs. Maybe because all his policies were developed when he was 20 and he can't find anything to rhyme with tariff.
Insert several laugh emojis here, L. Wilson. Good one.
I want Alberta to wake up with a loyal Canadian premier with a brain and a heart but I guess we have to await the next provincial election for Naheed Nenshi.
Have you met any Albertans? I lived there for around 40 years till I moved back to Canada (thanks for all that money, suckers). Alberta voters are ignorant and selfish. Their major motivation is sticking it to the "libs".
Rural Albertans are actually proud of their ignorance.
Big chunk of my Maritime family moved there, adopted the local customs and beliefs because well more money than here.
Some still support Danny others have come to the light. I hope a bit more time and experience will remind them of their tough Maritime Planter and Loyalist roots and why Canada is the greatest country. Hate to see the distance between us grow; I so remember my grandmother s anguish as the first of them moved west because in the 50s it was so hard here.
Smith is a traitor and serves only the oil industry, not the people of Alberta and she cares even less for the rest of the country. Expect her to sign up for lap dance lessons.
Newest member of “Tarts for Trump”… Smith wears it well.
Albertans aren't very smart.
Another careful, thorough article Max.
Just when you thought that the Cons couldn't possibly be more embarrassingly "little dog...."
Also, Smith was among the many "disinvited" ones when the inauguration was moved indoors (hehehe....)
There are some political masterstrokes in all this....
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQZSjmLBGrMfJGZDmWLCSqCvBKm
of course she does.. she's a sell-out POS dumb-C who's only purpose is to sell out to capitalists.. while farmers have no water and Albertans pay the highest rate for electricity and STILL face rolling black outs.. treason is no longer a crime,
all over the world "leaders are selling out to big corporations.. laying waste to the land and to the world for future genneration.. again..not a crime to deny delay depose science and self evidence..donald duck trump and pierre the prick polieve are going to double down on oil coal lng plasic manufacturing and data centers that will use more energy than a small city.. of course the energy will be for free and run on fossil fuels..
in south america the "leaders" are clear cutting forests.. all over the world in fact, as palm oil corporations also clearcut forests .. all 110% legal.. just like everything Hitler and Stalin did was legal.
we were in court the other day suing the municipality for useing a Alternative Process, which is "if you don't vote no, you vote yes" to them borrowing $275 million for a performing arts center and 4 ice rinks, which we already have at least a dozen ice rinks. they did it in the middle of summer, for 30 days, with no publication, only using their web page which only reached 300 poeple out of 90 000, but of course it too is 110% legal.. but obviously not reasonable.. which the courts will deny delay depose bc courts don't like to intervien in politics...and side with the city..
but during the break I nice talked to the cities two lawyers, I noted that legal does not mean lawful, nor moral, noting everything Hitler and Stalin did was legal.. the lawyer looked at me funny, then said, "well you know Russians had a constitution that protected them, so it was not legal" which I said, hmmm.. funny thing.. Canada has a constitution as well, but look what governments on all levels are doing .. he didn't say much.
whats funny is wat
"If you don't vote no, you vote yes." Yeah, but this is an unavoidable feature of democracy, which, remember, is terrible except for all the other systems of government.
Basically you vote for someone you think will act in good faith for the community as a whole, not just for him or herself (also entirely normal to a degree) and will be reasonable and considerate of constituents insofar as is possible.
However, even if your choice for candidate wins, you still have to expect not to agree with every action or decision made because you know that everyone works within various constraints, including yourself, and after all, you're not THEM and you're not THERE. So some good faith is also required on your part as a member of a democracy, along with some basic trust, ESPECIALLY if your candidate of choice doesn't win.
Unfortunately, what's changed is that the internet has given everyone what amounts to an unreasonably inflated sense of self-importance and/or agency, far more than makes sense, even in a democracy, with the upshot being that far too many expect instead that they SHOULD agree with every single decision made.
The ensuing political chaos we're all currently so uncomfortably and relentlessly embroiled in arises primarily from that, but even more than that is the fact that conservatives, who are always on their back foot as far as winning government goes, have also been the most unscrupulous when it comes to mining the motherlode of rage-farming found online. Ironically, but resoundingly with Trump's second inauguration, they have also proven once and for all exactly WHY they don't DESERVE to govern a democracy.
I lean towards the idea that the federal gov't should clearly assert it's position of doing what is best for the entire country; essentially ignoring Smith, if need be. The premier can squawk all she wants, but I think it's beneficial to show those to the south that they will need to converse with the parents, not the one child in the brood who is pouting.
One point about that last couple of paragraphs--Trump is actually to a fair degree right about trade. Not even close to completely right, but closer than the mainstream economists who always fail to predict financial crises. The fact is that the theory of comparative advantage, which underpins the idea that free trade is good, is only true if you accept certain assumptions, prominent among them being:
--There is no, or close enough to no, international investment
--There is no such thing as the "future".
Which is to say, it's complete bullshit.
Free trade using the "comparative advantage" hypothesis IS good for countries which have already industrialized, if they can get countries which have not yet industrialized to stick to it. Back in the day of Ricardo, a Brit who came up with it, it was good for Britain, which tried to persuade the United States to stick to growing cotton and such, and let Britain do the "making it into clothes" part because after all Britain was better at it due to already being industrialized. The US didn't buy it and pursued a course of protectionism and government assistance to build local industry, which worked.
Globalized free trade has been a disaster for both the United States and Canada, which used to produce a lot more of our own goods and have more of our own industrial production and the jobs that went with it, before we started getting into free trade. China talked the free trade game, but in fact always managed their trade and investment pretty carefully--that's why they grew into a world industrial power so quickly.
Some return to protectionism and localism would be good for the United States, and for Canada. But this stuff is complicated. You can't just leave trade to "free markets", but you also can't just slap a blanket tariff and hope for the best, or you'll end up paying more for everything and not getting much local production in return. You have to figure it out, have a strategy, protect key industries with tariffs and put in government supports (subsidies, education and training, government R&D spending etc) to help those key industries grow. Trump's approach is stupid, and if he's going to put blanket tariffs on somebody, Canada with its similar wage structure and American ownership of most of its companies and so on is about the stupidest country to put them on. But he is right that the free trade approach was no good either.
There's a great reminder about who pp really is and who anyone that he supports or supports him really is.
https://x.com/Morgan_C_Ross/status/1880451113234886869?mx=2