º¬Ð߲ݴ«Ã½

Are the 25 per cent tariffs (10 per cent on energy) that the White House announced Saturday about addressing what it called “the extraordinary threat” of illegal aliens and drugs, notably fentanyl, in the United States?

If so, why is Canada punished with a 25 per cent tariff when the problem flowing from Mexico and China is so much greater, and they are only slapped with 25 per cent and 10 per cent tariffs respectively?  show agents seized only 43 pounds of fentanyl at the northern border last year while more than 21,100 pounds were seized at the southern border. 

Setting aside the unfairness of the action toward Canada, if that’s the reason, how do we give Trump a win?

°Õ³ó±ðÌý that Canadian officials scrambled to put together late last year doesn’t seem to have mattered. Trump’s rhetoric continued, and the tariff rate remained unchanged. 

The President’s executive order Saturday states that Canada has played a “central role” in the U.S. drug crisis by “failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully co-ordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs.”

So what’s required to appease Trump?

On the call with the premiers Saturday, the federal government shared that incoming Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc that if the number of Americans dying from fentanyl declined, then the tariffs could start to be reduced.  

That’s a nearly impossible goalpost for Canada to hit. Even with law enforcement agencies devoting more resources to cracking down on the cartels in Canada (which they should do), this country cannot curb the U.S. drug problem on its own.

The executive order states that tariffs will be removed after the president determines “sufficient action” has been taken to “alleviate the crisis.” 

But if that’s the case, why did Trump tell reporters in the Oval Office last week that there was nothing Canada could do to avoid the coming tariffs?

“We’re not looking for concessions,” he told journalists Friday evening. 

Instead, Trump told them the tariffs were not about illicit drugs at all.

“No, it’s not [a negotiating tool],” Trump said in response to that question. “No, it’s pure economic, we have big deficits with, as you know, with all three of them,” he said, of Canada, China, and Mexico. 

Trump added: “It’s something we’re doing and we’ll, we’ll possibly very substantially increase it or not. And we’ll see how it is. But it’s, it’s a lot of money coming to the United States. As you know, we have about a $200-billion deficit with, with Canada, getting close to $200 billion. And they’ve treated us very unfairly.”

The United States does not have a “close to $200-billion” trade deficit with Canada. 

Government figures show the U.S. had a trade deficit of $64.3 billion (U.S.) in 2023, and a trade surplus of $28.6 billion if energy is excluded from the mix. A  states the U.S. is on track to record a trade deficit with Canada of $45 billion for 2024, again because of oil and gas exports.

If the trade deficit is the problem, should Canada sell less oil to the United States?

That doesn’t seem to be what Trump is after, since he limited the tariff on energy, presumably to avoid a sticker shock for Americans at the gas pump.

So then, if it isn’t about the trade deficit, it’s a money grab (from American consumers, to be clear). Trump, for decades, has spoken about tariffs as a way to boost domestic manufacturing, to usher in a new era of investment, employment and prosperity for Americans.

With no one in Washington — from Secretary of State Marco Rubio to budget committee chairman Sen. Lindsay Graham — able to give the Canadian government a clear answer as to what Trump is after, and therefore, what win or off-ramp Canada can give the president, Ottawa has concluded this is about revenue generation. 

The strategy, therefore, announced on Saturday by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, is an escalating trade war. The goal is to make Americans feel the pain, so much so that the White House concludes enough is enough and reverses course.

The federal government has drawn up a list of goods, notably in Republican districts, hoping that those representatives will grab the President’s ear.

But Trump seems to believe that suppliers will absorb the price increase, that Americans won’t see inflation rise, or blame him for the rising costs of goods. He believes it is a trade war he will win. The United States can absorb the pain more easily than Canada.

It is a remarkable shift in strategy. After all, free trade was, as the late Republican President Ronald Reagan , central to the American “vision of a peaceful and prosperous world.” It wasn’t altruistic. The U.S. established the rules and sought to exert its influence through trade. 

With time, Trump’s strategy will likely weaken the United States, sending its allies into the hands of its enemies, even perhaps Canada. Who can replace the U.S. as this country’s primary energy consumer? China. How is that in the best interest of the U.S.? 

Since it’s unclear what the president is after, it’s difficult to know what strategy Canada should employ. Is the government’s current lower-risk escalating tariffs the best approach or should we seek to impose maximum damage on the U.S. immediately?

Sunday morning, the president suggested on his social media platform Truth Social a different end goal than the objectives he’d floated earlier. This wasn’t about using tariffs to extract concessions from Canadian officials and businesses, as a White House fact sheet outlined. It was about absorbing Canada into the United States.

“Canada should become our Cherished 51st State. Much lower taxes, and far better military protection for the people of Canada — AND NO TARIFFS!,” he posted.

Had the president’s joke become his objective? If so, Canadians need to have a different conversation.