08/22/2026
This is probably the best “see both sides of the argument” article I have read. That being said, I 100% disagree with Danielle Smith’s response. We all know that there will be economic fallout, but if the alternative is rolling over to the States’ demands, we need to put up a united front, or we set a precedent for future negotiations. There is already so much division in the province/country. Her outburst just continues to feed into that division, exposing cracks, and the US WILL exploit them. Not a good look for the province of Alberta right now. United we stand, divided we fall!
Danielle Smith is breaking from the tougher “tariff for tariff” language coming out of Ottawa and Ontario tonight, and her reason is simple: Alberta has far too much money tied to the United States to treat a trade war casually.
After Canada U.S. negotiations collapsed and Washington imposed new 50 percent tariffs, Smith said she was “deeply disappointed” that the two countries failed to reach an agreement.
But unlike Doug Ford, who has backed Mark Carney’s dollar for dollar retaliation, Smith is already pushing for negotiations to restart as soon as possible.
That difference matters.
Smith’s message is essentially this:
Fight for Canada, protect Canadian workers, but do not lose sight of the fact that tariffs hurt both countries.
And from Alberta’s economic perspective, you can understand why she is saying it.
The United States is overwhelmingly Alberta’s largest export market. Alberta government data show the province exported about C$151.5 billion worth of goods to the U.S. in 2025 alone.
That is an enormous economic relationship.
Oil.
Natural gas.
Petrochemicals.
Agricultural products.
Machinery.
Manufactured goods.
Thousands of Alberta jobs are connected directly or indirectly to American demand.
So when Smith warns that “no one benefits from a trade war,” this is not some abstract diplomatic talking point.
Alberta has real money on the line.
But Canada has now entered a much more dangerous stage of this dispute.
The U.S. imposed 50 percent tariffs early Saturday on roughly US$20 billion worth of Canadian products, covering around 5 percent of Canada’s exports to the United States. Canada has responded by promising matching tariffs dollar for dollar.
Mark Carney says Canada walked away because Washington changed the proposed terms at the last minute in ways Ottawa considered unfair and economically unacceptable.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer gives a very different version, saying Canada refused to finalize terms that had previously been agreed upon.
That disagreement is important.
Because Canadians still do not know exactly what changed.
And until the disputed terms become public, people should be careful about declaring that either side unquestionably blew up the deal.
What we do know is that the agreement looked very close only hours earlier.
The negotiations had reportedly included reductions in existing American tariffs on Canadian autos, steel and aluminum, alongside Canadian concessions involving U.S. alcohol, dairy access and procurement rules.
Then the deal collapsed.
Now both countries are escalating.
And that is where Smith and Ford appear to be taking different approaches.
Ford says Canada has to stand united and hit back dollar for dollar.
Smith says tariffs and counter tariffs threaten workers, businesses and families on both sides and wants Ottawa back at the negotiating table quickly.
Neither argument is ridiculous.
Retaliation can create leverage.
If Washington can repeatedly impose tariffs without facing economic consequences, what incentive does it have to stop?
But retaliation also has costs.
Canadian importers pay Canadian retaliatory tariffs.
Some of those costs can eventually reach businesses and consumers.
Companies have to find new suppliers.
Prices can rise.
Investment can be delayed.
That is why trade wars are so dangerous.
There is no magical tariff that only hurts the other country.
And Alberta understands that better than most provinces because its economy is deeply integrated with the United States.
But there is another uncomfortable truth Smith will eventually have to confront.
Restarting negotiations is not enough.
The bigger question is:
What should Canada be willing to give up to get the U.S. back to the table?
That is where this gets difficult.
Carney has already said his government will not accept “a deal at any price or on any deadline.”
If Washington’s final demands really did undermine Canadian economic interests or make the agreement unreliable, simply going back and accepting them would solve nothing.
Canada would have peace today and another tariff threat tomorrow.
That is not economic certainty.
Businesses cannot make billion dollar investment decisions in an environment where market access can disappear every few months.
And that is why Carney’s broader strategy of diversifying Canadian trade has become much more important.
The U.S. will remain Canada’s largest trading partner for the foreseeable future.
Nobody serious is suggesting Canada can simply replace the American market.
But Canada can reduce the amount of leverage Washington has.
More export capacity to Asia.
More trade with Europe.
More pipelines and ports.
More domestic manufacturing.
More critical mineral processing.
More interprovincial trade.
More infrastructure connecting Canadian resources to global markets.
That is the real long term insurance policy.
Because Alberta’s C$151.5 billion in exports to the United States demonstrate both the strength and the vulnerability of the current relationship.
The U.S. market has helped Alberta become extraordinarily prosperous.
But when one customer becomes overwhelmingly important, that customer gains power.
And the past 18 months have shown how quickly Washington is willing to use that power.
The latest 50 percent tariffs also come at an awkward time for the future of CUSMA.
The Trump administration declined a straightforward 16 year extension of the North American trade agreement earlier this summer, meaning annual reviews could continue while the agreement technically remains in force through 2036.
That means even if Ottawa and Washington eventually resolve this latest dispute, Canada cannot simply assume the old stability is coming back.
This may be the new reality.
And I think Smith’s statement reveals something important about the political debate Canada is about to have.
Doug Ford is focused on deterrence.
Mark Carney is focused on retaliation and diversification.
Danielle Smith is emphasizing negotiation and the enormous cost of prolonged economic confrontation.
Different provinces will naturally see this differently because their economies are different.
Ontario worries about autos and manufacturing.
British Columbia worries about lumber.
Quebec worries about aluminum.
Alberta worries about energy and its enormous cross border trade relationship.
That does not necessarily mean Team Canada is falling apart.
It means the economic pain will not be distributed evenly.
The challenge for Carney is keeping those provincial interests aligned while refusing to let Washington play them against one another.
Smith also said she welcomes Ottawa’s plan to provide financial relief to businesses affected by the new tariffs.
That will become increasingly important if this confrontation lasts.
Because governments can talk about sovereignty and standing strong.
Businesses still have payroll on Friday.
Workers still have mortgages.
Farmers still have equipment payments.
Exporters still need customers.
The strongest Canadian response cannot simply be patriotic language.
It has to include real support for companies caught in the crossfire and a credible strategy for finding new markets.
Smith is right about one fundamental point:
Nobody should want a Canada U.S. trade war.
But Canada also cannot solve this by accepting whatever Washington demands simply because confrontation is expensive.
That is the trap.
The only sustainable outcome is an agreement both countries can actually live with.
Until then, Canada has to do two things simultaneously.
Defend itself today.
And reduce its vulnerability tomorrow.
The negotiations may have collapsed.
The economic relationship has not.
And with hundreds of billions of dollars in trade at stake, eventually these two countries are going to have to talk again.
The question is what Canada looks like when they do.
Please like and share.
Source: Statement by Alberta Premier Danielle Smith.
