Rob Breakenridge: Criticizing Carney’s tariffs is hardly treason

In a feeble attempt to cast Canada as the villain and aggressor, the White House released a “fact sheet” on Tuesday laying out our alleged trade transgressions.

Canada, the White House says, is guilty of having imposed “discriminatory” tariffs on U.S. vehicles, of banning American alcohol in most provinces, and of “locking out” U.S. dairy through tariff rate quotas “more restrictive than those given to Europe.”

Of course, none of this happened in a vacuum. Canada didn’t just wake up one day and decide to wage economic warfare against our largest trading partner. This fact sheet conveniently omits the American imposition of tariffs on Canadians which preceded our retaliation.

We were content to maintain our trading relationship with the United States, as per the deal negotiated under Donald Trump, which he had previously described the “best” trade deal ever. That trade deal, by the way, covered those same dairy provisions that the Americans are now complaining about. Yet, we were still willing to have a conversation about that, too.

It is abundantly clear at this point how and why we got to this point. One of the first acts of Donald Trump’s second term was to slap tariffs on Canada — not to mention musings and threats about annexation — which was subsequently followed up by even more tariffs.

No Canadian should be under any illusion as to the cause and source of this dispute. To the extent that we require some sort of national “Team Canada” consensus, it’s that crucial point.

There are those reluctant to blame the U.S. president, however. Part of that is a simple partisan impulse, a desire to see the prime minister and his government stumble and fail..

There are also those who simply admire or sympathize with Trump and his MAGA movement, and long for a similar figure and movement here (wouldn’t a Canadian Trump also be protectionist and pro-tariff?). And, yes, there are those that are flat-out disloyal to Canada: those that are attempting to break up this country, many of whom wouldn’t mind being absorbed into Trump’s America.

It does not follow, however, that acknowledging the chief culprit in this quagmire commits us to supporting a certain course of action. It’s fair to call out the domestic “Blame Canada” contingent, but the accusations of disloyalty should not flow down to those who disagree on the nature or degree of a retaliatory response.

It’s interesting that for all the talk of “Team Canada,” our strategy depends heavily on the absence of an American equivalent. It’s certainly not disloyal for American critics of the president’s destructive agenda to voice those concerns and advocate for a more sane and logical approach. Our hope is that the dissenters prevail.

It’s fair to note that no Canadian response will ever pose the same sort of existential threat as U.S. pressure on Canada can, but presumably our objective here is still to get back to the sort of friendly trading relationship we had prior to all of this madness.

Assuming that’s the goal — and that such a goal is in Canada’s interest — then it’s hardly disloyal to favour a course of action that gets us back to the negotiating table and that minimizes disruptions in the remaining trade between the two countries.

Maybe there’s no point in talking to the Americans for now. Maybe it’s time to draw a line in the sand. Reasonable people can disagree on the best path forward here.

But given that less than a week ago, our official position was to negotiate and be willing to make compromises toward the broader — beneficial — goal of an agreement with our biggest trading partner, it’s unfair to paint those who still hold that position as quislings or fifth columnists.

Moreover, for all our efforts to remind Americans that their tariffs are inflicting costs and economic damage on themselves, the same holds true for our own retaliatory tariffs. Whether we believe they’re morally or strategically justified doesn’t make them any less economically painful.

It’s not disloyal to worry about compounding the damage to Canada’s economy that Trump’s tariffs will already cause. Public opinion may be on the side of going to the mattresses and making the Americans feel some pain, but we can have room for differences of opinion on the extent to which we attempt to do so.

Alberta’s premier seems to be bearing the brunt of the accusations of falling short of “Team Canada” expectations. Given that Alberta is in the throes of a separation referendum and that Premier Danielle Smith leads a party with a not insignificant amount of separatist sentiment, there is some degree of invited suspicion.

Smith’s expressed concern about the impact of higher and broader tariffs, though, is hardly unwarranted. And the desire to get back to the negotiating table is, again, presumably what Ottawa hopes to achieve at some point.

Furthermore, the reluctance to put certain tactics on the table, such as Ottawa taxing or restricting oil exports to the U.S., is understandable.

For one, while we can bristle at the idea of pandering to separatists, such federal interference in the oil and gas industry would be ill-timed and counterproductive to the federalist cause in Alberta.

But also, premiers can be advocates for their regions and their industries. We see Quebec’s premier making it clear that their red line is protecting language and culture, as well as supply management. Ontario’s premier is obviously prepared to do whatever it takes to protect the auto sector. Surely Doug Ford would be hesitant to put that sector at risk if Trump’s tariffs were targeting Canadian oil and gas.

And, as Smith pointed out Wednesday, placing an export tax on Canadian oil would surely provoke an American response. An export tax on American oil that flows into Canada would be dire for Ontario and Quebec especially.

Ultimately “Team Canada” shouldn’t mean unanimous, unwavering support for whatever course of action the federal government happens to favour at the moment. We should be able to agree that Canada is the aggrieved party here and that it’s regrettable that our closest ally and most important trading partner has chosen this path.

It’s still reasonable to ask, however, what it is we’re trying to achieve moving forward, and what the costs and benefits of a particular tactic might be.

Ultimately, this whole debacle only serves to underscore the value and importance of free trade, and it’s still a pro-Canada position to desire free trade and to acknowledge the very real downside of tariffs and other trade barriers.

Rob Breakenridge is a Calgary-based podcaster and writer. He can be found at robbreakenridge.ca and reached at rob.breakenridge@gmail.com