Rattled by Trump’s tariff threat, Canada’s leaders point fingers at each other

Canadian political leaders can’t control the fact that Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States. Neither can they stop him from threatening to take illogical steps that could hurt American businesses and consumers almost as much as they would hurt Canadians.

But Canadian political leaders can control how they respond to those threats and actions. And Canadians can judge how serious those responses are.

Trump is vowing to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada and Mexico unless both countries stop what he calls an “invasion” of drugs, “in particular Fentanyl, and all Illegal Aliens” into the United States.

While the number of migrants crossing America’s northern border has increased in the past year, the human and drug traffic moving from Canada to the United States is still a tiny fraction of what’s moving across America’s southern border with Mexico.

Regardless, stopping unwanted people and things from entering the United States is primarily the responsibility of the United States — just as it was primarily Canada’s problem to solve when thousands of people started crossing from the United States into Canada at Roxham Road.

And while the imposition of new tariffs undoubtedly would cause major problems for Canadian businesses and pose a serious threat to the national economy, it also would cause problems for American companies and raise prices for American consumers — particularly if the U.S. tariffs invite retaliation from Canada and Mexico.

“The fact is, we need them and they also need us,” Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland said on Tuesday. “We sell them oil. We sell them electricity. We sell them critical minerals and metals.”

The premiers concede and Poilievre stumps

Flavio Volpe, president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’​ Association, appealed for calm in a social media post on Monday night.

“We’ve got to learn how to deal with these tactics,” he wrote. “Patience.”

Volpe represents an industry that has much at stake and his counsel might be wise — not least because Trump’s threat might be merely the opening gambit in a larger negotiation.

But the political cycle does not allow for patience.

“The federal government needs to take the situation at our border seriously,” Ontario Premier Doug Ford tweeted less than an hour and a half after Trump issued his threat on Monday night.

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday morning, Ford said it was “unfair” and even “insulting” for Trump to speak of Canada and Mexico in the same sentence. But he still seemed to concede that the president-elect had a point.

“We need to do better on our borders,” the premier said.

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith offered a similar concession. The incoming administration, she said, “has valid concerns related to illegal activities at our shared border.”

Perhaps the premiers believe that accepting Trump’s logic is a clever countermove. And pointing a finger of blame or responsibility at the federal government — which has jurisdiction over borders — is just something that comes naturally to premiers.

But even while federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre had nothing good to say about the Liberal government, he was willing to describe Trump’s threatened tariffs as “unjustified.”

In Poilievre’s estimation, the return of Trump means Canada needs a leader with “brains” and a “backbone.” And that leader needs to have a “plan” — specifically, a “Canada first” plan.

While declaring that it’s time to put partisanship aside, Poilievre described a plan that largely aligns with things he’s been demanding for months — such as the repeal of the federal carbon tax and an end to plans for a cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry.

It’s not obvious that any of Poilievre’s ideas would cause Trump to withdraw his threat. Instead, Poilievre’s argument seems to be that implementing his prescribed policy changes would make the Canadian economy stronger and somewhat better able to withstand whatever actions Trump takes.

In other words, the Conservative leader seemed to want to say that Donald Trump’s return is another reason why Pierre Poilievre should be prime minister.

Singh wants a ‘fight,’ Trudeau vows to act ‘methodically’

Questioned by reporters, Poilievre did allow that he would, if necessary, consider taking retaliatory actions against the United States.

But the loudest rattler of sabres on Tuesday was Jagmeet Singh.

“The only thing a bully responds to is strength,” the NDP leader said in question period.

Singh said the prime minister should “fight like hell” and called on the government to establish a “war room.” The prime minister seemed unpersuaded.

“I don’t think the idea of going to war with the United States is what anyone wants,” Trudeau responded.

Trudeau said that while his government would “stand up” for Canadians, it would do so “seriously” and “methodically … without freaking out like the leader of the NDP seems to be.”

If war is off the table, it only remains to be seen what else Canada — and Canadians — might decide to do instead.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc pointed to the work already being done with American officials to monitor the border and told the CBC’s Power & Politics that he believes Canada has a “good story” to tell in that regard.

The prime minister is convening a first ministers’ meeting on Wednesday; both Trudeau and Freeland talked up the importance of a “Team Canada” approach. Freeland acknowledged that Canada responded to previous Trump tariffs with “targeted” tariffs of its own.

All of this is largely in line with what the Trudeau government did during Trump’s first term. 

Stopping briefly to speak with reporters on Tuesday morning, Trudeau said he and the president-elect had a “good call” on Monday night.

“We obviously talked about laying out the facts, talking about how the intense and effective connections between our two countries flow back and forth. We talked about some of the challenges that we can work on together,” he said.

“This is something that we can do. Laying out the facts, moving forward in constructive ways. This is a relationship that we know takes a certain amount of working on and that’s what we’ll do.”

“Laying out the facts” might seem like a futile — even naive — gesture right now. But it’s not obvious that anyone else has any better ideas.