At a challenging juncture in our nation's history, amid fears of annexation by the Trump administration and calls for Canadian unity, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is determined to work with her Quebec counterpart to uphold provincial sovereignty. She couldn't have chosen a more unsuitable moment. In a letter to Quebec Premier François Legault dated March 21, Smith highlighted the common interests shared by Alberta and Quebec in countering federal government interference in matters falling within exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Simultaneously, she is under intense scrutiny for traveling to Florida to advocate Alberta's position to a conservative American audience. Critics now question the rationale behind her rhetoric, as they argue that her response to Trump's anti-Canada actions does not resonate with Canadians who are democratically opposing through consumer boycotts of American goods. What is the reason behind her subservience?
To begin with, let's see first what she intends to do with Quebec.
Referencing a committee's recommendations to bolster Quebec's provincial authority, Smith pledged Alberta's support for at least eight of the proposed measures. These include:
- challenging federal spending powers
- advocating for constitutional amendments to prioritize Quebec property law over federal legislation,
- and granting the province authority to nominate Superior Court judges.
Moreover, Smith defended the use of the notwithstanding clause and expressed interest in holding public debates before its expiration. She emphasized the importance of provincial legislatures in deciding on constitutional rights, advocating for elected bodies to have the final say on matters concerning parliamentary sovereignty.
The Alberta Sovereignty within a United Canada Act, enacted in 2022, underscores Alberta's commitment to safeguarding its interests from harmful federal regulations. Smith expressed willingness to collaborate with Legault on similar legislation in Quebec, aiming to forge a new era in Canadian federalism.
Quebec's Justice Minister and Minister responsible for Canadian Relations, Simon Jolin-Barrette, welcomed Alberta's proposal, particularly appreciating their backing of the notwithstanding clause. He sees an opportunity for provinces to assert autonomy within the federation, bridging the gap between federalism and provincial separatism.
While Quebec's opposition parties are cautiously open to discussions with Smith, some voices, like Parti Québécois' Joël Arseneau, express skepticism about Alberta's stance on provincial autonomy. Despite differing visions for their respective provinces, there is a recognition of potential divisions within Canada.
Federalist Liberal MNA Greg Kelly emphasized the party's commitment to preserving the Canadian federation, cautioning against talks that may lean towards secession—an inclination he notes is growing in Alberta.
Danielle Smith’s subservient Florida trip flouts the Team Canada approach to fighting Trump
Junaid B. Jahangir
Associate Professor, Economics, MacEwan University
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith is facing fierce criticism for using taxpayer money to meet American far-right pundit Ben Shapiro in Florida as part of a recent fundraiser for conservative think tank PragerU.
At the event, Smith and Shapiro reportedly joked about U.S. President Donald Trump annexing Canada.
Smith also praised the United States for turning away from 2050 climate targets, spoke of a “net zero ideology” and promoted the importance of Albertan oil and gas to Americans.
Smith was initially opposed to retaliatory tariffs against the U.S., but eventually acquiesced. Nonetheless, she recently scoffed at a poll that showed a majority of Canadians (68.1 per cent), even in the Prairies (58.8 per cent), support retaliatory tariffs on oil and gas.
Those defending her Florida appearance argue that Smith intended to reach out to a conservative American audience to present Alberta’s case in the face of Trump’s tariffs.
She appeared to attempt a balancing act as she stressed the harms of tariffs without strongly pushing back against Trump’s annexation rhetoric.
The problem with subservience
I’ve argued that a better response to Trump’s tariffs would be countervailing power, not abject subservience. Additionally, Smith’s approach to Trump’s anti-Canada actions doesn’t reflect the will of Canadians who are pushing back democratically through consumer boycotts of American goods.
Smith’s critics also argue that she cannot achieve more than social pleasantries in her forays to the U.S. to hobnob with right-wing personalities. Generally, the approach of talking to the far right is contingent on various factors, including subject matter and timing, to be successful.
The benefits of Smith exchanging social pleasantries and pleading her case with the far right in the U.S. comes at the cost of breaking rank from the united stand Canadians need given the perceived existential threat to their country.
Additionally, Smith shared a platform with those who hold hardcore beliefs about women’s autonomy, LGBTQ rights and who peddle pseudo-academia in the “intellectual dark web,” sending a troubling message to many Canadians.
The economics of Smith’s approach
Understanding Smith’s response on retaliatory tariffs requires understanding the economics behind it.
Smith has an undergraduate degree in economics. But textbook neoclassical economics itself is problematic. I’ve already addressed the shortcomings of mainstream neoclassical economics on climate change in both mainstream and academic work.
In his book Economism, American law professor James Kwak highlights the problems with Economics 101 as it’s taught at universities around the world. He argues it leaves students with simplistic soundbites long after they’ve graduated that informs their political thinking in later life.
This could explain Smith’s approach that rests on free market fundamentalism (based on unfettered trade with smaller government and more private entrepreneurship).
Her economic approach complements her libertarian approach that apparently involves courting right-wing groups that are often small government proponents.
Neoclassical economics on tariffs
When it comes to tariffs, textbook economics extols the benefits of free trade without addressing serious issues of environmental degradation and working conditions. Those studying this mainstream economic school of thought may have been left with the overwhelming impression that when the U.S. imposes tariffs, it only hurts itself.
Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw’s bestselling principles textbook shoots down arguments about how tariffs save jobs, protect infant industries, strengthen national security and prevent unfair competition.
Several Canadian economists don’t see economic merit in retaliatory tariffs and relegate the issue to politics. Trained within the mainstream neoclassical model, they also view tariffs as categorically harmful.
Doing nothing in response to tariffs then becomes the default response, based on the argument that governments would make things worse by intervening in the market.
Australian economist Steve Keen has pointed out that mainstream economics did not have much to say about the global financial crisis in 2008. This is partly because of the belief in what’s known as the “efficient market hypothesis” that contends stocks always trade at fair value.
In terms of this “do nothing” approach in neoclassical economics, Smith’s response on retaliatory tariffs is therefore not surprising.
No comments:
Post a Comment