As the tariff war between Canada & the US gets under way, the bigger danger for Canada is that it will be led by grifters, poseurs and ideologues. We will see a repeat of what happened during Covid, including rhetorical tactics.
GROUNDHOG DAY
On March 4th, I made a post on X in which I drew a comparison between the just-started tariff war between Canada and the US with the Covid era; my point was that just like the crisis created opportunities for the politically connected people to plunder public money 5 years ago during Covid, the new emergency would do the same. I linked my article from August 2020 to further my point. To be frank, my observation was not a unique insight – many people have said that they were seeing ‘shades of March 2020’, or words to that effect, in relation to the tariffs war. The fact that so many people see this is also not unexpected; as I narrated in my article, it is deeply ingrained in the human psyche to derive benefit – monetary or otherwise – from other people’s crises, problems or suffering.
Regardless of the kind of benefit they seek to extract, and of the exact modality by which they do so, quite often the starting point – nay, an essential prerequisite – is to create an atmosphere where disagreement with the ideas being offered is decreed as verboten: opponents must be silenced, and dissent must be outlawed, failing which the dissenters are ostracized, silenced or cast out of the fold of society.
WITH US OR AGAINST US
It was therefore along entirely expected lines that we started seeing messages from ‘the usual suspects’, starting the process of dividing people into ‘patriots’ versus ‘traitors’. For example, here is former federal environment minister Catherine McKenna who, as we know, is no shrinking violet any time a soapbox in in her vicinity; her message: “You’re either on Team Canada or you’re not”. It would be tedious to quote similar messages from other individuals who specialize in spouting ‘the current thing’, be it ‘residential school denialism’, ‘settler colonialism’, ‘systemic racism’, vaccination mandates or anything else.
The problem, of course, is that today’s ‘current thing’ may be the complete opposite of that of yesterday. Thus, the people who held for years that oil / gas pipelines were the ultimate ecological crime are now frothing at the mouth with their demands for an east-west pipeline from Alberta to the Maritimes (as an aside, their hostility to Alberta and Albertans has evaporated faster than morning dew in the Sahara desert). Elsewhere, we see that the cohort of Canadians that wanted the government to confiscate every single legally owned gun and cheered every (fumbled) attempt to do so, is now advocating for raising a ‘Civil Defence Corps’ in Canada, in case the US invades. I guess their slogan that ‘Nobody needs to own a gun’ has been shelved for the time being, to be retrieved once the current crisis has pa… wait – the federal government just banned another 179 types of firearms. I guess we will have to defend Canada against the invading American army using sticks and stones.
In short, the definition of ‘patriotism’ is not only changing, but is now actually the very opposite of what it was a few months ago. However, cognitive dissonance can be a blessing at times, so the people advocating for ‘the current thing’ are able to carry on merrily with spouting the CURRENT ‘current thing’ even if it is diametrically opposed to the PREVIOUS ‘current thing’. Not only that, but we also see the energetic re-emergence of ‘competitive piety’ in this group (see my old article ‘Canada’s Neo-Clergy’ from May 2021 for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon). In a nutshell, it means that individuals try to appear more in line with ‘the current thing’ compared to others by taking a more and more extreme stance that soon begins to flirt with ludicrousness. But in the emotionally charged atmosphere like what we have currently, they don’t face the opprobrium or consequences that would normally result from such an approach in normal times – or in a sane society.
HOLIER THAN THOU
Of course, the political class is not immune from ‘competitive piety’. In fact, it can be argued that they are more susceptible to it because modern democratic politics is, to a large extent if not essentially, an exercise in posturing. Therefore, I was not surprised when Ontario Premier Doug Ford started talking about shutting off export of electricity to the neighbouring US states such as New York and Michigan. Emotional appeals are necessarily divorced from reality, so it did not occur to him that the crude oil for Ontario’s refineries, en route from Alberta, passes via not just the US but in fact the same Michigan state that he is threatening with cessation of electricity supplies. This pipeline (called Line 5) is already under political pressure from the Michigan Governor, a Democrat. It would be a case of bipartisan unity if she were on the same page as the Republican President Trump and both decide to shut the pipeline off in retaliation to Premier Ford’s (threatened) action. The result would be that Ontario would run out of petrol, diesel and distillates within days. In short, Premier Ford would be shooting himself (and all Ontarians, or roughly 40% of all Canadians) in the foot.
In a normal society, one would expect this kind of recklessness to be pointed out – and, hopefully, corrected – by the media, especially the analysts, commentators and pundits. Unfortunately (and pardon me for sounding like a broken record here), our mainstream media is an abject failure in this regard. My opinion is that this is because most of the mainstream media are participants in, rather than neutral observers of, the ideological battles that we so unfailingly reduce every policy discussion to. For example, see this X post by Andrew Coyne:
Here, it is worth bearing in mind Mr. Coyne’s credentials: BA in economics and history from Trinity College (University of Toronto), master’s degree in economics from the London School of Economics, former editor and columnist with a national-level newspaper (National Post), current columnist with another national-level newspaper (Globe & Mail) and a regular presence on the taxpayer-funded ‘national broadcaster’ CBC’s At Issue panel for at least 17 years (I started watching CBC in 2008) where one expects to see commentary of the most mature and sober kind. In short, the force that is supposed act in a countervailing manner to correct the excesses on the political side is instead being applied to augment the political argument and provide validation for these excesses.
DISCORD
This is not to say, however, that there is perfect unanimity among those who have hopped on to the jingoism bandwagon. For example, while Prime Minister Trudeau said, in a rather unstatesman-like manner, that “Canadians are probably going to keep booing the American anthem”, Ontario Premier Doug Ford “plead(ed) with people to stop jeering the American National Anthem”, saying “That’s crossing the line”. This divergence of opinion brings us to issues in Canada that, while having the potential to benefit Canadians greatly, have remained unresolved for years, if not decades.
Take, for instance, the interprovincial trade barriers. It boggles my mind that it is easier – and cheaper – to trade with another country (the US) than with the other provinces in our own country. I am not alone in this feeling. A nation is defined, at least for me, as a group of people with a shared sense of destiny. This is why I consider PM Trudeau’s old declaration that “Canada is a post-nation state” worthy of being laughed out of the room.
True to form, all politicians across the spectrum hopped on the bandwaon, along with the MSM producing reports showing the negative economic impacts of these barriers. As the Globe & Mail reported breathlessly, “Ottawa agrees with provinces to act fast to topple internal trade barriers”. Alas (as the saying goes), the devil is in the details. The immediate jubilation at this report in Liberal and Liberal-aligned circles notwithstanding, the politicians involved have done nothing other than saying something to please the masses. To get into the details, we have something called ‘the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)’. Pause here and consider the unusualness, perhaps even the ignominy, of a country having to create an agreement for free trade inside its own borders. Now consider that this CFTA came into existence in 2017. I have two observations here: (a) this happened 150 years after Canada became an independent county, and (b) the Agreement seems not to have achieved much report-worthy progress in 7+ years.
The G&M report says that the Committee on Internal Trade (because what good is a government intiative if it does not increase the size of the bureaucracy?) “has been given the task of coming up with a process to recognize labour credentials by June 1”. Sure, what they couldn’t do in 7+ years, they will definitely achieve in 12 weeks. But it gets even worse: “Governments will also be launching negotiations to recognize each other’s regulatory standards for all consumer goods, with the exception of food.” Does this fill you with confidence that these ‘negotiations’ will be completed soon – if ever?
British Columbia Premier David Eby, having “confirmed earlier on Wednesday that a commitment on knocking down internal trade barriers was forthcoming”, and having claimed with a rather puffed chest that “I can assure people who have been frustrated by this, who have been wondering if the day would ever come, that they are going to be blown away by the level of co-operation and work that is under way right now to address this long-standing issue,” also “told reporters there are some “nuances” that have to be addressed, for example a dental hygienist from B.C. would need to upgrade their training in order to work in Alberta where they’d be expected to administer anesthesia”.
Ah, those ‘nuances’. In common parlance, they’re called ‘the devil in the details’. That’s where the entire process will bog down, as it has always done – and not just on the issue of interprovincial trade barriers. The people who are at the receiving end of these ‘nuances’ know this perfectly well. For example, here is Bridgitte Anderson, president and CEO of the Vancouver Board of Trade: “My concern is around inertia in the system and complacency.” The quote is from the G&M report.
ROOT CAUSES
As the great American author James A. Michener has noted in one of his books, “In history, there is no happy ending – only points of crisis that pass”. Accordingly, the crisis of the tariffs threat will also pass, and things will go back to being what they always were. Interprovincial trade barriers will remain.
The reason is not far to seek: the deeply entrenched vested interests that have forced the status quo of interprovincial trade barriers on Canadians aren’t going to give up because of pesky things like national priorities. As I pointed out in my January 2021 article ‘Structural Dysfunction’, “We are no longer a nation of people sharing a sense of destiny, but rather different groups that seek to subjugate each other”. Until that changes – and fundamentally – I don’t see anything else changing.
This can be seen readily in the fact that while the presumptive winner of the Liberal leadership race and therefore the most likely next prime minister of Canada, Mark Carney, talked about using emergency powers to implement pipeline projects across Canada (which he contradicted when addressing a different crowd in French language), Bloc Quebecois leader Yves Francois Blanchet claimed, essentially, that there is ‘no business case’ for such pipelines going through his province. But elsewhere, as Heather Exner-Pirot posted on X, “All of Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial Energy and Mines Ministers issued a joint declaration to “accelerate resource development through more efficient and timely permitting and regulatory processes.” This would, of course, require repealing – or at least materially amending – Bill C-69, colloquially known as ‘No Pipelines Act’. But the parliament is prorogued, so that cannot be done until it is reconvened. As reported by the Globe & Mail, the need for legslative change was also voiced by the CEO of Enbridge, Greg Ebel: “Canada’s current regulatory environment makes it impossible to build a pipeline like its Northern Gateway project, which was abandoned almost 10 years ago after Ottawa revoked its permits. “The ability to actually get anything done would take significant legislative changes”.”
The political statements are thus belied by the lack of urgency in action. In the meantime, we are left with meaningless measures (if the term ‘measures’ can be used here validly) of taking American liquor off the shelves in Ontario and, according to a X post by Riley Donovan, in Nova Scotia as well.
PRECEDENT
Contrary to what we hear from politicians and (disappointingly) from the media, this is not the first time that a trade war has flared up between Canada and the US. As is typical in today’s world, I came across this salient fact on social media (specifcally, X). Historian Craig Baird posted a 10-part thread on how this chapter in the 1890’s went. Of particualr interest to me is the eventual outcome. One of the objectives of the Tariff Act of 1890 in the US was the annexation of Canada. The expected ‘benefits’ were touted, including ‘brotherly love’ that ‘may lead to unity in the end’. The impact in Canada was an upsurge in patriotism (the real kind, from what I gathered from the thread – but I haven’t studied this chapter in our history in detail); “Sir John A. Macdonald used the tariffs as a rallying cry in the 1891 election and was able to win another majority government”, while the Republicans in the US went on to lose the Congressional elections in 1890, and in 1892, the Democrats regained control of the Senate, House and Presidency. They then proceeded to lower the tariffs.
What does this mean in the current context? Does this mean that the Liberal Party (even without Justin Trudeau as its leader) stands a chance of winning the next election? Let us look at the way Canada responded to American tariffs: Canada found other markets for its products – in quick time. In two years, agricultural exports to Britain went up by more than 300%, from $3.5 million to $15 million. Produce and animal exports to Britain increased by 50%, from $16 million to $24 million. Meanwhile, American consumers experienced sharp increases in prices. My guess is that the Republicans’ electoral defeats could have resulted from the ensuing economic hardship.
As I see it, these were the main factors at play: (a) Canada was still closely allied with Britain, much more than it is now, (b) its exports were mainly related to agriculture and animal husbandry. But in today’s world, there are material differences, mainly, that (a) our exports are heavily tilted in favour of non-agricultural items such as oil, gas and manufactred items and (b) trade is more widely spread globally, rather than being confined to the western countries. Therefore, I believe that the next election will bne won by the leader who can present the most convincing – and the most well-communicated – set of ideas on how overcome all the problems besetting us now while dealing effectively with the ever-mercurial President Trump.
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY
Unfortunately, the response so far from our political class to President Trump’s tariffs threat has been, to put it mildly, along traditional lines. For example, on March 7, CTV News reported that ‘Ottawa announces $6.5 billion aid package for businesses hit by trade war’. The same report quotes NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as “call(ing) on the federal government to expand the EI program to cover all workers, including contractors, and to lengthen the amount of time people can claim benefits.” Of course, this gives him yet another excuse to keep propping up the minority Liberal government. In short, this is just Covid 2.0. However, it is worth noting that China imposing tariffs on Canadian products has failed to elicit any response from the same political class.
The reason why they are unable to think beyond spraying other people’s money is not difficult to understand: tackling the myriad issues – each of them serious enough to be a major national challenge – would take many years and unusually high level of capability that is rare to find (especially in the political arena). In the interim, politicians have to strike a pose as if they know what to do.
AN HISTORIC FIGURE
Even before the crisis of the tariffs war began, we had a whole plethora of serious issues that needed effort on a war footing. You are well familiar with those (and this article is getting long enough), so I will refrain from recounting these here. Suffice to say that we need an historic figure to lead us out of the morass that find ourselves in. Someone who, instead of trying to square the circle that patriotism can exist in a post-nation state, rejects the latter concept outright. That takes political courage. So does saying that IF INDEED fossil fuels have a limted future, we should make as much money as we can in the interim, out of the huge reserves that we have been blessed with, to benefit Canadians instead of foolishly punishing them for zero global impact.
Do we have such a figure in our politics? One who will eschew the path of faux patriotism, unwarranted bravado and perniocious opportunism? The opening stanza of a Hindi poem that I read decades ago comes to mind. I have forgotten the rest of the poem, and the name of the poet as well, but the message in that stanza deserves our attention. Addressing a ‘jogi’ (a man who has renounced the material world), the poet says:
Man mein jot jagaane-waale tyaag gaye yeh dera, jogi!
Uttar, dakkhan, poorab, pachchham – chaaron aur andhera, jogi!
Those who can light a flame left this camp long ago, jogi!
North, south, east, west – there is darkness in all four directions, jogi!
***
Independent voices are more important than ever in today’s Canada. I am happy to add my voice to the public discussions on current issues & policy, and grateful for all the encouraging response from my listeners & readers. I do not believe in a Paywall model, so will not make access to my content subject to a payment.
To help me bring more content to you, please consider donating a small amount via this PayPal link on my website: https://darshanmaharaja.ca/donate/
Image Credit: James Vaughan via flickr.com; the image is at this link. Used without modification under Creative Commons License.