If the flies are coming into my house, isn’t it incumbent upon me to put my screens up?
Make sense. So why do the Americans want us to put up their screens?
U.S. President Donald Trump is waving his tariff cudgel at Canada because he says we’re letting fentanyl and immigrants into that country. Once again, isn’t it incumbent on the U.S. to put up its own screens.
Make no mistake, we’re not condoning the illegal flow to drugs and migrants anywhere, but why is it our problem to fix their problem? Frankly, I’m disappointed and disgusted at Canadian politicians who have taken to echoing Trump’s rhetoric in this country, making it sound like we’re a bastion of drug dealers and human smugglers.
Do we have those issues? Absolutely, but it’s not at a level that, if you believe some politicians, make it a national emergency. The national emergency regarding fentanyl that needs our attention is the number of deaths attributable to it here, not the amount smuggled into the U.S.
And, for those who still like facts, Canada accounts for only one per cent of the fentanyl smuggled into the U.S.
If the U.S. wants to make a big issue about fentanyl being smuggled into the U.S. from Canada, why don’t we make a big issue about U.S. guns being smuggled into Canada from the U.S. For some reason we’re silent on that.
Why not some good old-fashioned horse-trading? Tell the U.S. we’ll crack down on fentanyl and migrants headed south if they’ll crack down on guns headed north? Instead, we’re focused on appeasing someone who cannot be appeased or reasoned with. Sound familiar?
Six months ago we were proud to brag that Canada and the U.S. have the longest undefended border in the world, now we’re acting like the border is festering cesspool of drugs and criminal. Come on, know better and we can do better.
When Trump started this nonsense a few months back, Ottawa quickly found $1 billion to (stern voice please) “shore up our border,” or, more aptly appease a bully. Don’t get me wrong, increasing border security isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but we should do it because we see the need, not because Trump wants us to solve American problems.
As an aside, Ottawa missed the boat as it should have funnelled that billion dollar border package through the Department of Defence. Had they done that, it would contribute to our NATO commitment of spending two per cent of our GDP on defence … another issue Trump will threaten tariffs over should we appease him on fentanyl and immigration.
With the tariffs set to be imposed Saturday, we still don’t know exactly what Trump will do. However, he is suggesting oil may be exempt (someone get Alberta Premier Danielle Smith a defibrillator).
Trump has, of course, bemoaned the fact that the U.S. has a trade deficit with Canada and, in addition to the fentanyl fabrications, has used it as an excuse for tariffs. The trade deficit means they buy more of our stuff than we do of theirs (at least in dollar value). Trump ridiculously equates this to the U.S. subsidizing Canada. The irony is, if you take oil, which we sell to the U.S. at a discounted rate, out of the equation, Canada would have a trade deficit with the U.S.
The solution is simple, cut off oil exports to the U.S. (OK, Smith really needs a defibrillator now), but there would no longer be a trade deficit with Canada and, thus, no need for tariffs.
Ludicrous? Absolutely. But isn’t that the currency we’re trading in these days?
Born and raised in Fernie, Bill Phillips is an award-winning journalist and columnist. He was the winner of the 2009 Best Editorial award at the British Columbia/Yukon Community Newspaper Association’s Ma Murray awards, in 2007 he won the association’s Best Columnist award. In 2004, he placed third in the Canadian Community Newspaper best columnist category and, in 2003, placed second.
