Will Carney's Dazed & Confused Trade War Performance Target Canada's Oil & Gas Industry?
todayville.com -- Saturday, August 16, 2025, 10:57:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: Trade Policy & Tariffs, U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–China Relations
At first, the elbows up chicken dancers at Carney election rallies seemed harmless enough.
Post-election, they've become a menace.
The problem is being a patriotic chicken dancer does not mean one is also well informed about the fundamentals of economics and international trade. This partly explains why yesterday's chicken dancers have become today's cheerleaders for Ontario Premier Doug Ford and his plans for combating the Trump tariffs.
Ford supports a "get tough on the Americans" Team Canada response to our tariff problems. He imagines a pan-Canadian flourishing of hard-nosed patriotism whereby we punish the US with counter-tariffs and export taxes.
Ford wants us to pull together as flag waving Canadians and kick American butt, no matter how much it hurts us. Of particular concern to people from Alberta and Saskatchewan is eastern Canada's fixation on applying export taxes on oil potash and uranium.
Ford's approach amounts to a willingness to endure self-inflicted wounds to show the Americans we mean business. Come on patriots, circle the wagons and shoot in. Let the Americans know if they don't eliminate those dastardly tariffs we will punch ourselves in the face some more. That'll show 'em.
Take potash for instance, food guru Sylvain Charlebois among other Eastern pundits has alerted us to the problems Canada could create for US agriculture by imposing punitive export taxes on Saskatchewan potash. That would indeed present a serious problem for American farmers, but not for long.
Prior to Putin's invasion of Ukraine, Russia and its ally Belarus vied with Saskatchewan for the title "world's largest potash producer". Saskatchewan's potash industry has done relatively well following the imposition of international sanctions on Russia and Belarus over their unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. (Belarus allowed Putin to assemble invasion forces on its territory.)
But guess what? Just as soon as we put an export tax on potash, Trump can be expected to waive the sanctions on Russia and Belarus and ensure US farmers aren't starved for fertilizer. Conceivably it could take years for Saskatchewan producers to win back their American customers. Export taxes are a threat to the well-being of your own exporters -- not merely a way to irritate your opponent in a trade war.
It is less likely, but possible, a similar fate would await Western Canada's petroleum sector if export taxes were applied to the oil we sell to the U.S. It seems eminently plausible that if we taxed oil exports Trump would be tempted to seek out alternative sources in the international marketplace. Would he entertain removing sanctions on Russian oil for example? Admittedly, it would be a difficult problem for Americans to deal with.
But are Ford, his Team Canada cheerleaders and the federal government crazy enough to put oil revenues at risk? Crude oil remains the single most valuable commodity we export. Why would sane people put those revenues at risk? Unfortunately, after 10 years of Liberal government we have learned that when environmental zealots are in office they will happily sacrifice economic growth, jobs and prosperity on behalf of combating climate change.
It is easy for Doug Ford and the "patriots" to chicken dance to their hearts' content if the cost of getting tough on the US is borne by oil, gas, potash and uranium producers from Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Tariff problems affecting the prairies took a turn for the worse on August 11 when China placed a 75% tariff on Canadian canola. Canada exports about $5 billion worth of canola in seed form, oil and meal to China. Saskatchewan and Alberta account for over three quarters of those exports.
Provincial politicians from the West have called on the prime minister to fast track discussions with China to resolve the dispute. China claims the new tariff is a reaction to Canada dumping canola produced by subsidized farmers. That's a total fiction. The real reason is retaliation for the 100% tariff the Trudeau Liberals applied to Chinese EVs.
The Government of Canada, Canadian automakers and EV battery manufacturers have invested billions in developing the capacity to manufacture batteries (often unsuccessfully) and retooling assembly lines at auto plants.
Chinese government subsidies have been in large measure responsible for the incredible advances in Chinese EV technology. Chinese EVs are more technologically sophisticated, more energy efficient and far less expensive than EVs produced in Europe and North America -- little wonder car makers in those regions have demanded their governments impose stiff tariffs on Chinese EV imports.
It's clear that the Team Canada approach to fighting tariffs has run into a couple of significant snags. Teams Ontario and Quebec would be pleased to see export taxes applied to Western oil, gas, potash and uranium. The West will never agree to this.
At the same time prairie farmers would like to see the tariffs on Chinese EVs reduced or eliminated. Ontario and its thousands of auto workers can't let that happen.
We can therefore expect to see a collapse in pan-Canadian cooperation.
It doesn't require deep insight to predict who the winners and losers will eventually be. The Liberal government showed its hand several weeks ago when it passed legislation guaranteeing supply management for dairy and poultry farmers would never become a bargaining chip in trade negotiations. Supply management is a sacred institution in Quebec. La Belle Province has by far the most dairy farmers per capita of any province. Protecting those farmers is one of Quebec's perennial demands.
As it happens, one of Donald Trump's principal irritants when it comes to trading with Canada is the supply management system. He has identified it as one of the reasons he's getting tough on trade with Canada.
When it comes to a prairies versus Ontario and/or Quebec quarrel, Westerners only rarely win.
It's a Liberal tradition, keep the voters in Ontario and Quebec as happy as possible. So what if the West gets annoyed -- they have no power in parliament. That's why Liberal elections strategy is based on the maxim "Screw the West, we'll take the rest."
Sign Our PetitionIn the current climate of international trade tensions, the discourse surrounding Canada's oil and gas industry is becoming increasingly complex. The article raises critical points regarding Ontario Premier Doug Ford's "get tough" stance on U.S. tariffs and the implications of retaliatory export taxes on Canadian natural resources. This situation can be understood in the context of historical patterns of trade, economic nationalism, and the ongoing struggle for social justice within the framework of environmental sustainability and Indigenous rights.
Historically, Canada has often found itself in a delicate balancing act with its larger neighbor to the south. The economic interdependence between the two nations has led to a series of trade agreements, most notably NAFTA and its successor, the USMCA. These agreements often prioritize corporate interests over local economies, leading to a situation where resource extraction is favored at the expense of environmental protections and social equity. Ford's approach to retaliating against U.S. tariffs by imposing export taxes on commodities like potash and oil reflects a nationalist economic strategy reminiscent of reactions seen in past trade disputes. However, this approach may overlook the potential long-term repercussions for the Canadian economy and the workers within these industries.
The call for a "Team Canada" response, while outwardly patriotic, risks exacerbating existing tensions between provinces, particularly between resource-rich regions like Alberta and Saskatchewan and the more populous eastern provinces. The suggestion that Canada should inflict self-harm in an attempt to assert its sovereignty raises important questions about the prioritization of regional interests versus national unity. The trade-off between short-term political gain and long-term economic stability is particularly poignant in this context. As the article points out, the prospect of losing American clients to alternative global suppliers, such as those in Russia, underscores the precariousness of relying solely on nationalistic rhetoric without a strategic, informed approach to international trade dynamics.
Moreover, the intersection of environmental concerns and economic strategies cannot be ignored. The oil and gas industry has long been criticized for its environmental impact, leading to calls for a transition towards sustainable energy sources. In the context of the climate crisis—a reality underscored by increasing natural disasters and public health concerns—should Canada's response to trade disputes not also reflect a commitment to sustainability? Export taxes on fossil fuels could inadvertently reinforce an industry that many Canadians are advocating to leave behind, thus prolonging the environmental degradation and social injustices associated with fossil fuel extraction.
The implications of Ford's strategy also extend to Indigenous communities, many of whom are disproportionately affected by the extraction of natural resources. Historically, these communities have faced systemic marginalization, and their voices often remain sidelined in discussions about resource management. As the federal government navigates trade relations and economic policies, it must prioritize the inclusion of Indigenous perspectives and rights in any decisions regarding resource exportation. The imposition of export taxes on oil and potash could exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine the rights of Indigenous peoples to their land and resources.
In conclusion, the current discourse surrounding Canada's response to U.S. tariffs must be grounded in a comprehensive understanding of historical precedents, regional dynamics, environmental sustainability, and social justice. While the temptation to engage in a nationalistic trade war may appeal to populist sentiments, the potential consequences of such actions could ultimately harm Canada's economic stability, environmental integrity, and social cohesion. Engaging in informed discussions about trade policies and their broader implications is essential for fostering a more equitable and sustainable future for all Canadians.
The ongoing trade tensions between the United States and Canada find themselves at a critical juncture, particularly in light of the recent proposals by Ontario Premier Doug Ford. His notion of a "Team Canada" response to U.S. tariffs, replete with counter-tariffs and export taxes, reveals a troubling strategy rooted in a misguided sense of patriotism. While Ford's intentions may stem from a desire to protect Canadian interests, the implications of such measures could be detrimental both economically and diplomatically. In a time when interdependence among nations is paramount, it is essential to scrutinize the rationale behind retaliatory tariffs and understand their potential ramifications on Canada’s own industries, particularly oil and agriculture.
Historically, trade wars have proven to be counterproductive for all parties involved. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which raised tariffs on hundreds of imports, is a classic example of how protectionist measures can spiral into economic downturns. The ensuing retaliatory tariffs from other nations led to a significant decrease in international trade and contributed to the Great Depression. Fast forward to today, and we see echoes of this history in Ford's strategy. His call to arms against American tariffs, while seemingly robust, risks echoing the past rather than charting a new course toward cooperation. Instead of rallying Canadians to engage in a tit-for-tat with the U.S., a more prudent approach would emphasize negotiation and dialogue, aiming for trade agreements that respect the interests of both nations without resorting to self-inflicted economic damage.
As citizens concerned about the implications of such aggressive policies, we must advocate for a more thoughtful response to trade relations. Engaging in grassroots activism that encourages dialogue around trade policy is vital. We can press our representatives to prioritize diplomacy over confrontation, urging them to seek innovative solutions that can mitigate the impact of U.S. tariffs while protecting Canadian businesses. Highlighting the interconnectedness of our economies might resonate with those who view trade through a lens of nationalism. For instance, emphasizing how Alberta’s oil industry is vulnerable to the volatility of U.S. policies can serve as a rallying point for a broader conversation about the need for economic collaboration rather than isolation.
Moreover, it is crucial to educate ourselves and others about the broader implications of retaliatory tariffs on everyday life. The potential for higher prices on goods, loss of jobs, and diminished international competitiveness should resonate with a wide audience. Canadians should engage in discussions that link trade policies to their direct impacts on local economies, emphasizing how a trade war could lead to higher costs for consumers and reduced market access for exporters. By framing the conversation around the tangible benefits of cooperation, we can create a compelling case against the dangers of retaliatory tariffs and the pitfalls of economic nationalism.
Finally, we should be vigilant about the narratives being spun by political leaders like Ford. The portrayal of economic self-harm as an act of patriotism is a dangerous rhetoric that can lead to a broader acceptance of policies that undermine our economic stability. Instead, we must champion a vision of economic interdependence that aligns with the realities of globalization. By fostering a culture of informed debate, where facts and economic principles guide our discussions, we can work toward a future where trade is viewed not as a zero-sum game but as a collaborative effort to enhance the prosperity of all nations involved. By standing firm against protectionist impulses and advocating for strategies that promote mutual benefit, we can contribute to a healthier discourse around trade that ultimately serves the interests of the people.
In light of the ongoing discussions surrounding trade policies and their implications for Canadian industries, there are several actionable steps that individuals can take to engage with the current political climate. Here’s a comprehensive list of ideas and actions:
### Personal Actions to Engage with Trade Policies
1. **Educate Yourself and Others:** - **Action:** Read up on trade policies, tariffs, and their implications for local and international economies. Share this knowledge with friends, family, and community members. - **Example:** Organize a community discussion group or book club focused on trade issues, inviting local economists or trade experts to speak.
2. **Support Local Economies:** - **Action:** Prioritize buying local products to support Canadian businesses that could be impacted by trade wars and tariffs. - **Example:** Create or join a local "buy Canadian" initiative that emphasizes supporting local farmers and manufacturers.
3. **Engage with Elected Representatives:** - **Action:** Reach out to your local representatives to express your concerns over trade policies that may harm Canadian industries. - **Who to Write to:** - Your Member of Parliament (MP). You can find their contact information on the Parliament of Canada website. - For example, if you live in Toronto, you could contact: - **Name:** Julie Dabrusin - **Email:** julie.dabrusin@parl.gc.ca
4. **Sign or Create Petitions:** - **Action:** Participate in or initiate petitions that advocate against harmful trade policies or propose alternative solutions. - **Example:** Use platforms like Change.org or Avaaz to find or create petitions aimed at protecting Canadian industries from punitive tariffs.
5. **Join Advocacy Groups:** - **Action:** Become a member of or support organizations that focus on fair trade policies and the protection of local economies. - **Example:** Groups like the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) often have campaigns you can join.
6. **Contact Industry Associations:** - **Action:** Reach out to associations related to your local industry to express your concerns and ask how you can help. - **Example:** Contact the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) to see if they have campaigns you can support. - **Contact Information:** info@capp.ca
7. **Participate in Public Forums:** - **Action:** Attend town hall meetings or public forums where trade policies are being discussed. - **Example:** Look for events hosted by local universities or community centers that focus on economic issues.
8. **Social Media Engagement:** - **Action:** Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the impacts of trade wars on local industries. - **Example:** Share informative articles, engage in discussions, and use hashtags related to trade policy, such as #FairTradeCanada and #SupportLocal.
9. **Write Opinion Pieces:** - **Action:** Contribute to local newspapers or online platforms with articles or op-eds addressing the impact of trade policies. - **Example:** Submit a piece to your local newspaper discussing how certain policies could harm your community’s economy.
10. **Contact the Prime Minister’s Office:** - **Action:** Directly express your concerns to the Prime Minister regarding the trade policies being proposed. - **Contact Information:** - **Email:** pm@pm.gc.ca - **Message:** "Dear Prime Minister, I am concerned about the impact of potential export taxes on our local industries, particularly in the oil and gas sector. I urge you to consider the long-term implications for Canadian producers and explore diplomatic solutions to trade disputes."
### Conclusion
By taking these actions, individuals can actively participate in shaping trade policies that prioritize the well-being of Canadian industries. Engaging with elected officials, supporting local initiatives, and spreading awareness about the implications of trade wars can contribute to a more equitable and sustainable economic environment.