Opinion: Ms. Smith goes to Washington
Ryan Montgomery, Staff Writer |
Political scandals are typically secretive affairs. Usually, it takes the press years of digging and prodding to get admissions of wrongdoing out of their elected officials. Naturally, politicians would make a concerted effort to hide any machiavellian wrongdoing from the scrutinizing eye of the electorate.
That’s why the country was so perplexed when, on March 8, in a recorded interview for right-wing American news corporation Breitbart, Danielle Smith let slip that she asked American officials to put a halt on tariffs in order to impact the 2025 Canadian federal election.
In the interview, which was published over two weeks ago but resurfaced on March 23, Smith spoke to Breitbart about a number of topics, chiefly the issue of tariffs, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre and the political impact of tariffs.
“Before the tariff war, I would say yes. I mean, Pierre Poilievre is the name of the Conservative party leader, and he was miles ahead of Justin Trudeau. But because of what we see as unjust and unfair tariffs, it’s actually caused an increase in the support for the Liberals, Smith explained.
The premier continued to state that she feared that the dispute would further benefit the Liberals.
“And so that’s what I fear, is that the longer this dispute goes on, politicians posture, and it seems to be benefiting the Liberals right now. So I would hope that we could put things on pause is what I’ve told administration officials. Let’s just put things on pause so we can get through an election.”
Asking for tariffs to be removed itself is no act of wrongdoing. Who wouldn’t want their elected officials to ask the American administration to pause the destructive economic tariffs? Premiers are supposed to advocate on behalf of their provinces, whether that be in Ottawa or Washington.
The issue arose when Smith explained her political considerations concerning the discussion. Smith laid out that the Liberals were benefitting politically from the tariffs, and that’s why she asked the American government to stop them. Not to protect the fragile Canadian economy. Not because the tariffs are inane, random, and unwarranted, but because they were helping the Liberals in the polls.
Make a note of the premier’s specific words. She asked them to pause the tariffs, not end them, pause. After the election, the Yanks are A-OK to bring the tariffs back and the millions of lost jobs that will follow. But as long as the tariffs are helping the Liberals, the premier wants them gone. This is what caused controversy in her statement, it was purely based on political considerations.
It’s hard to overstate how big of an issue this is, especially because the UCP loves to sue, and I’m walking on eggshells here.
According to the federal chief electoral officer, Stéphane Perrault, this was not an illegal action by the premier. Despite that, it was certainly unethical. Asking a foreign government to alter its policy to affect a Canadian election is just a hop, skip, and a jump away from full election meddling.
Even if she’s fine on the legal side of this scandal, she certainly isn’t hunky dory on the polling aspect. As many other premiers across the country have seen their approval rating spike in what has been dubbed the ‘Trump Bump,’ Smith has seen her approval stay the same. So, what did Ms. Smith have to say in her defence?
Smith’s press secretary, Sam Blackett, rejected the accusations, calling them “offensive and false.”
If the only way you can hold your elected officials accountable is as long as no one’s feelings get hurt, this may be my last article.
Smith claimed that she was doing the opposite, that she was, in fact, stopping election interference by asking the Americans to halt their tariffs. This was a flawed line of logic from the premier. The Liberals are benefiting from the tariffs because Canadians feel that they are the best party to deal with Trump.
Just because the Liberals have politically benefited from tariffs doesn’t mean the Trump administration is interfering on their behalf. That’s like saying the grass is conspiring with the clouds because the plants grow in the rain.
Smith, being dragged with the other souls of the dammed to the depths of political scandal, decided that she wanted company on her way down and reached for the ankle of prime ministerial hopeful Pierre Poilievre.
“I would say, on balance, the perspective that Pierre would bring would be very much in sync with, I think, the new direction in America,” Smith told Breitbart.
In an election where the biggest issue is the American president and the mere mention of his name in a positive context is anathema to the Canadian public, this comment by the premier no doubt caused quite a few migraines for Poilievre. He has struggled to distance himself from Trump in the eyes of the electorate as of late.
Trump gave him some wiggle room by claiming, “I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a Liberal. And maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t care.”
As much as that dismissal may have helped Poilievre’s message, Smith’s admission may have caused just as much, if not more, damage.
If anything, this was a failure of Poilievre to distance himself from Smith. To extol the cause of national unity over the secessionist tendencies of the Albertan right.
However, he missed his shot.
Instead of denouncing the premier’s comparison between his views and Trump’s, he declined to comment on her statement. As the saying goes, silence speaks volumes indeed.
Taking into account the chief electoral officer’s statement and the lack of any real reaction beyond the ire of the press and the public, it’s looking like nothing will come of this interview except a few more grey hairs on the weathering temples of Poilievre.
