Balancing Provinces and Prioritizing Canada: A Call for Unity
December 18, 2024
In the complex landscape of international trade and economic diplomacy, Canada’s provincial leaders are faced with the challenge of balancing regional interests with national priorities. The recent discussions around potential tariffs from the incoming U.S. administration have underscored the necessity for a unified Canadian front. However, Alberta’s Premier Danielle Smith’s divergent stance has sparked a debate that goes beyond provincial borders, touching on the very essence of Canadian unity and national strategy.
Alberta’s economic landscape is undeniably tied to its oil industry, a sector that has been a cornerstone of the province’s prosperity and a significant contributor to the national economy. The oil sands have not only fuelled Alberta’s growth but have also been a lifeline for Canada, providing jobs, energy security, and substantial revenues. For Premier Smith, prioritizing Alberta’s interests is not only a political necessity but also a reflection of her commitment to her constituents who depend on this vital industry.
Yet, as Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford aptly put it, “Our country comes first.” In times of external threats, such as the looming tariffs that could destabilize the Canadian economy, unity becomes paramount. The strength of a nation lies in its ability to stand together, to prioritize collective well-being over regional gains. This is where the balance must be struck—between advocating for provincial interests and aligning with a national strategy that safeguards all Canadians.
Smith’s decision to distance herself from the consensus reached by her fellow premiers raises questions about the broader implications of her stance. While her focus on Alberta’s oil industry is understandable, her approach risks isolating the province at a time when cohesion is crucial. By not joining the collective effort, Alberta may inadvertently weaken its negotiating power, as well as that of the entire country.
Doug Ford’s leadership in rallying the premiers reflects a commitment to presenting a united front, essential in negotiations with a complex and unpredictable U.S. administration. His message is clear: while every province has its unique needs and priorities, these should not overshadow the importance of national unity. A fragmented approach only serves to undermine Canada’s position on the global stage and risks playing into the hands of those who might benefit from division.
In this context, it is imperative for Premier Smith to reconsider her strategy. By aligning more closely with her fellow premiers, she can advocate effectively for Alberta while contributing to a stronger, more cohesive national strategy. This does not mean abandoning Alberta’s interests but rather integrating them into a broader Canadian framework that seeks to protect the entire nation’s economic future.
The path forward requires collaboration, dialogue, and a willingness to put Canada’s collective interests at the forefront. As the country navigates these uncertain times, all provinces, led by their premiers, must work together to ensure that Canada’s voice is unified and its position strengthened. Only then can we effectively safeguard our economy, our sovereignty, and our future in a rapidly changing global landscape.
The Premiers meeting this week was a real eye-opener, showing just how tricky it can be to balance provincial and federal interests. And right in the thick of it is Alberta’s Premier, Danielle Smith, who’s found herself in a bit of an awkward spot. Why, you ask? Well, aside from her odd chumminess with Donald Trump—seriously, a weekend jaunt to Mar-a-Lago and plans to attend his inauguration?—she’s been steering Alberta in a direction that’s causing some raised eyebrows.
Smith’s focus on protecting Alberta’s oil industry makes sense given its importance to the province’s economy. But here’s the rub: oil is a hot-button issue, especially as we push towards green energy. Meanwhile, Canada’s trying to juggle putting a price on carbon while still propping up the fossil fuel industry. It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, really—oil revenues are crucial not just for Alberta, but for the federal government too, providing jobs and fuelling budgets.
Then there’s Trump’s looming 25% tariffs, which could seriously mess with the Canadian economy. Right now, it’s all about playing the waiting game to see if these tariffs will hit us across the board, or if, fingers crossed, oil might get a pass given the U.S.’s reliance on it.
Now, here’s where it gets even more tangled. Ontario’s Premier, Doug Ford, is rallying for a united front against these tariffs, saying we should protect our own turf but always put Canada first. It’s a solid point, given that oil is our ace in the hole—a big bargaining chip in the face of Trump’s wild tariff plans. But Smith’s solo approach could undermine this strategy.
The way I see it, Alberta needs to think about joining forces with the other provinces. A united stance gives us a stronger hand to play on the world stage, ensuring we protect both provincial and national interests. By weaving Alberta’s oil concerns into a broader Canadian strategy, we can amplify our voice globally and maybe, just maybe, take some wind out of Trump’s tariff sails.
So, what’s next? It’s a delicate dance, this one. But one thing’s for sure: how Alberta chooses to move forward could tip the balance for all of Canada. Let’s hope they choose wisely. Things can get very ugly, indeed.
I tossed a question out to my social media followers, asking for their take on Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s advice to Alberta Premier Danielle Smith regarding the Trump tariffs: “…protect your jurisdiction but country comes first, Canada’s the priority.” The overwhelming sentiment leaned in favour of Ford, yet the responses shed light on a deeper divide. Many pointed out that Alberta has often found itself at odds with the rest of Canada, citing examples like stalled pipeline expansions and the Keystone XL debacle. Some argue Smith was elected to defend Alberta’s interests, especially when those interests seem sidelined by national strategies. Others highlighted Alberta’s role as a major contributor to federal transfer payments, questioning why it should shoulder the burden without due consideration. A sentiment echoed was Alberta feeling like the 51st state, as its interests are perceived to be overridden by Ontario’s convenience. Meanwhile, some viewed Ford’s comment as perhaps his smartest yet, though motives were questioned—is it genuine, or just a strategic move for votes? The debate underscores the complex dynamics of provincial versus national priorities in Canada, and how this tension plays into the broader tariff negotiations.
Enjoy the January 17, 2025 making-of animated editorial cartoon below. Please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, if you haven’t already. Posts come out every Friday or Saturday as I summarize the week that was in my editorial cartoons. What you’re reading now is regarded as a “note”, which is used to help compose my weekly posts and showcase the animated versions of my daily editorial cartoons.
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 23, 2022
What the Liberal-NDP deal could mean for ‘aggressive options’ on defence spending
September 23, 2021
The prospects for a significant increase in Canadian defence spending in the coming federal budget looked a little less likely as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was set to head to Europe after announcing a stunning political deal with the New Democrats.
The Liberal government had been hinting that it was looking at aggressive options for injecting more money into the Canadian military in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Canada has been under heavy pressure to meet the NATO military alliance’s target, set in 2006, of spending at least two per cent of its national gross domestic product on defence, as a growing number of allies have since promised to do.
Trudeau was largely noncommittal on Tuesday as he announced the new confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, which will see the fourth-place party support the Liberal minority government through to 2025 in exchange for new investments in other areas.
Those include the creation of a dental-care program for lower-income Canadians, national pharmacare, affordable housing and phasing out subsides for fossil fuels, among others.
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday January 12, 2022
Canada offers to support U.S. measures to deter Russia in confrontation with Ukraine
June 13, 2017
Canada has told the U.S. that it’s willing to help with possible deterrence measures against Russia — which could include sanctions — to head off a crisis in Ukraine, CBC News has learned.
Canada made the offer during a meeting between Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Dec. 31, according to a source with knowledge of the matter.
The source said the message was received well by Blinken.
Bilateral talks between Russia and the U.S. over the nearly eight-year-long war in Ukraine took place in Geneva Monday. Nearly 100,000 Russian troops are stationed near Ukraine’s eastern border, prompting concerns from other countries that Russia’s President Vladimir Putin intends to invade Ukraine.
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 3, 2021
Biden retreats from vow to make pariah of Saudis
October 25, 2018
As a presidential candidate, Joe Biden promised to make a pariah out of Saudi Arabia over the 2018 killing of dissident Saudi writer Jamal Khashoggi. But when it came time to actually punish Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Biden’s perception of America’s strategic interests prevailed.
The Biden administration made clear Friday it would forgo sanctions or any other major penalty against Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in the Khashoggi killing, even after a U.S. intelligence report concluded the prince ordered it.
The decision highlights how the real-time decisions of diplomacy often collide with the righteousness of the moral high ground. And nowhere is this conundrum more stark than in the United States’ complicated relationship with Saudi Arabia — the world’s oil giant, a U.S. arms customer and a counterbalance to Iran in the Middle East.
“It is undeniable that Saudi Arabia is a hugely influential country in the Arab world,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said Monday when asked about Biden’s retreat from his promise to isolate the Saudis over the killing.
Ultimately, Biden administration officials said, U.S. interests in maintaining relations with Saudi Arabia forbid making a pariah of a young prince who may go on to rule the kingdom for decades. That stands in stark contrast to Biden’s campaign promise to make the kingdom “pay the price” for human rights abuses and “make them in fact the pariah that they are.”
“We’ve talked about this in terms of a recalibration. It’s not a rupture,” Price said of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
October 12, 2018
But what the Biden administration is calling a “recalibration” of former President Donald Trump’s warm relationship with Saudi royals looks a lot like the normal U.S. stand before Trump: chiding on human rights abuses in the kingdom, but not allowing those concerns to interfere with relations with Saudi Arabia.
In recent days, Biden officials have responded to intense criticism of the administration’s failure to sanction the prince by pointing to U.S. measures targeting his lower-ranking associates.
Those include steps against the prince’s “Tiger squad,” which allegedly has sought out dissidents abroad, and sanctions and visa restrictions upon Saudi officials who directly participated in Khashoggi’s slaying and dismemberment.
The language itself has softened, with Biden officials referring to Saudi Arabia as a strategic partner rather than pariah.
Watching it all, Trump suggested over the weekend that Biden’s stand on Saudi Arabia’s prince wasn’t so different from his after all. Khashoggi’s killing by Mohammed bin Salman’s security and intelligence officials was bad, Trump told Fox News, “but we have to look at it as an overall” situation. Biden seems to be “viewing it maybe in a similar fashion, very interesting, actually.”
August 8, 2018
Mohammed bin Salman, 35, has consolidated power in Saudi Arabia since his father, Salman, now 85 and ailing, became king in 2015. The prince soon after launched a war in neighboring Yemen that has deepened hunger and poverty in that country; opened an economic blockade of Qatar that only recently ended; and invited the leader of another Arab country, Lebanon, for a visit and without warning detained him.
The prince has silenced civil society at home, imprisoning writers, clerics, businesspeople and women’s rights advocates, detaining and allegedly torturing fellow royals, and allegedly forming a squad charged with abducting or luring exiles back to the kingdom to face further punishment.
Khashoggi had fled Saudi Arabia and was deepening his criticism of the prince in columns written for The Washington Post. When Khashoggi scheduled an Oct. 2, 2018, appointment at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to pick up paperwork needed for his wedding, Saudi security and intelligence officials were waiting for him there. So was Saudi security’s forensics chief, known for his techniques for rapid dissections. Khashoggi’s remains have never been found. (AP)
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 5, 2020
We should have done more, admits architect of Sweden’s Covid-19 strategy
Sweden’s chief epidemiologist and the architect of its light-touch approach to the coronavirus has acknowledged that the country has had too many deaths from Covid-19 and should have done more to curb the spread of the virus.
May 6, 2020
Anders Tegnell, who has previously criticised other countries’ strict lockdowns as not sustainable in the long run, told Swedish Radio on Wednesday that there was “quite obviously a potential for improvement in what we have done” in Sweden.
Asked whether too many people in Sweden had died, he replied: “Yes, absolutely,” adding that the country would “have to consider in the future whether there was a way of preventing” such a high toll.
Sweden’s death rate per capita was the highest in the world over the seven days to 2 June, figures suggest. This week the government bowed to mounting opposition pressure and promised to set up a commission to look into its Covid-19 strategy.
“If we were to encounter the same disease again knowing exactly what we know about it today, I think we would settle on doing something in between what Sweden did and what the rest of the world has done,” Tegnell said. It would be “good to know exactly what to shut down to curb the spread of infection better”, he added.
In an interview with the Dagens Nyheter daily, Tegnell subsequently said he still believed “the basic strategy has worked well. I do not see what we would have done completely differently … Based on the knowledge we had then, we feel we made the appropriate decisions.”
According to the scientific online publication Ourworldindata.com, the number of Covid-19 deaths per capita in Sweden was the highest in the world in a rolling seven-day average to 2 June. The country’s rate of 5.29 deaths per million inhabitants a day was well above the UK’s 4.48.
The Swedish prime minister, Stefan Löfven, told the Aftonbladet daily that the country’s overall approach “has been right”, but it had failed to protect care homes where half of all Sweden’s Covid-19 deaths have occurred. Social affairs minister Lena Hallengren told Reuters the government had been “at all times prepared to introduce wider, further measures recommended by the expert authority”.
Life in a Pandemic
Relying on its citizens’ sense of civic duty, Sweden closed schools for all over-16s and banned gatherings of more than 50, but only asked – rather than ordered – people to avoid non-essential travel and not to go out if they were elderly or ill. Shops, restaurants and gyms have remained open.
Although there are signs that public opinion is starting to shift, polls have shown a considerable majority of Swedes support and have generally complied with the government’s less coercive strategy, which is in stark contrast to the mandatory lockdowns imposed by many countries, including Sweden’s Nordic neighbours.
But the policy, which Tegnell has said was aimed not at achieving herd immunity but at slowing the spread of the virus enough for health services to cope, has been increasingly and heavily criticised by many Swedish experts as the country’s death toll has increased.
Sweden’s 4,468 fatalities from Covid-19 represent a death toll of 449 per million inhabitants, compared with 45 in Norway, 100 in Denmark and 58 in Finland. Its per-million tally remains lower than the corresponding figures of 555, 581 and 593 in Italy, Spain and the UK respectively. (The Guardian)
