The Struggle of the Neighbors*

*Editor’s note: On March 4, 2022, Russia enacted a law that criminalizes public opposition to, or independent news reporting about, the war in Ukraine. The law makes it a crime to call the war a “war” rather than a “special military operation” on social media or in a news article or broadcast. The law is understood to penalize any language that “discredits” Russia’s use of its military in Ukraine, calls for sanctions or protests Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It punishes anyone found to spread “false information” about the invasion with up to 15 years in prison.

Political analyst Ivan Loshkarev — on how Canadian conservatives react to Donald Trump’s threats and what it means for the relationship between the two countries.

Doug Ford, premier of the Canadian province of Ontario, has recently said that he’s ready to respond by stopping energy exports to the U.S. if the new administration introduces tariffs. Ontario’s government officials are also considering a range of other measures — blocking (on the state level) American companies from purchases, prohibiting the export of rare metals and restricting alcohol imports from their neighbor. All of this is a reaction to President-elect Donald Trump’s threat to introduce a 25% tariff on all Canadian goods.

As the province of Ontario decided to play a stakes-raising game with Trump, the province of Alberta is trying to remove the official reason for Trump’s claims, in particular — the lack of control over immigration and drug traffic. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, announced that Alberta was establishing a new border patrol squad, which includes 51 service people, four dogs, and several observation drones. Since only six people currently guard the border with neighboring Montana, this step is a significant increase in Alberta’s patrol forces.

The piquancy of the situation is that both provinces are headed by Canadian conservatives, who in theory should feel more sympathy to Trump than the nationally dominant Liberal Party and its leader, Justin Trudeau. Why, then, do Canadian conservatives think it is necessary to react to Trump’s initiatives, and why are they doing it so differently?

First of all, Canadian liberal and conservative politicians well remember the Canadian-American tariff war in the beginning of the 1930s. After American import tariffs increased in 1930, Canada imposed responsive tariffs on approximately a third of the mutual trade volume. This decision intensified a tendency toward crisis during the Great Depression, but the political consequences were more important: Two governments in a row lost national elections.

In our time, Canadian turbulence is even more dangerous for the main political forces than in the last century: The two-party system is slowly blurring, and the influence of the New Democratic Party — a Social-Democratic-leaning group — is on the rise. Both in Ontario and Alberta, the New Democrats have the second-largest faction in the provincial parliaments, and this turbulence could help them surge on the national level. Understanding long-term tendencies, British Columbia Premier David Eby, a New Democrat, promised to support “any” retaliatory measures against the U.S. tariffs.

For conservatives, it’s crucial to keep up public activity around this subject, hyping up the rhetoric but not any real confrontation. However, the ways of achieving this goal are directly linked to ideology. Canadian conservatism is under the very powerful influence of the processes in the U.S., and, with some delay, borrows ideas from the Republican Party, which is close to it in spirit. In the 1990s, Canadian conservatives waged the Common Sense Revolution and, in essence, borrowed the Reaganomics’ idea of restricting state spending and reducing taxes. In the 2000s, Canadian conservatism became “social,” included the Christian rhetoric of the George W. Bush administration, and vehemently stood against the dissolution of commonly accepted social structures (family, gender, religion). With the election of President Trump in 2016, it became only a matter of time when and how Canadian conservatism would replicate the new trends.

As for the new U.S. tariffs, some Canadian conservatives stand for the ideas of “common sense” and reducing state intervention in free trade. Among them is Alberta Premier Smith. The others, headed by Ontario Premier Ford, try to find answers in the spirit of Trump himself, giving priority to the national economy and its specific branches instead of the complex system of links between the two countries. However, it’s unlikely that the potential Canadian Trumpists will ally themselves with the new U.S. administration.

From the point of view of Trump himself, the “old school” Canadian conservatives are more convenient partners who are ready to make concessions in the name of mutual economic interests. Moreover, Alberta is more important than Ontario in the priority hierarchy of the new U.S. president. Alberta produces oil, the export of which helps reduce dependency on Middle Eastern suppliers. In contrast, Ontario has large automotive manufacturers that compete with those in the U.S. During Trump’s first term, the U.S. administration tried to sabotage their neighbors’ automotive industry by including a minimum wage in their new free trade agreement — a salary that was too high for Canada to reach.

Indirectly, history and geography also speak for moderate Canadian conservatives. Over the last 100 years, leaders of the conservatives came mainly from the sparsely populated western provinces, with the majority of the population there engaged in agriculture or mining. Two conservative politicians from Alberta even served as Canadian prime ministers (Richard Bennett and Joe Clark). The situation only changed in the 1980s, when Prime Minister Brian Mulroney made a bet on the densely populated eastern and central provinces.

So, the prospects of potential Ontario Trumpists are not that bright: The original version of Trumpism relies on the rural population and on the “forgotten” people, not on the spoiled population of megalopolises and post-industrial cities. The transition of Canadian conservatives to Trump’s ideas will require the ideological center of gravity to shift from Ontario and British Columbia, far to the west, including Alberta. In this event, there are not only opportunities but also risks — losing presence in densely populated provinces could reduce conservative influence on the national level. Moreover, the new westward expansion will face strong resistance from the New Democrats, who have partially borrowed the conservatives’ social agenda.

One way or another, Trump’s tariff threats force Canadian conservatives to try and find their place — both on the country’s map and within the ideological axis. The fact that they were pushed into it by threats and not action shows us once again how closely connected the U.S. and Canada are and how little wiggle room Canada’s politicians have.