In recent weeks, American President (elect) Donald Trump has publicly mused about Canada becoming the 51^st American state, referring to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the ‘Governor’ of the ‘Great State of Canada.’ These (offensive) comments came hand-in-hand with assurances that Trump’s incoming administration would use “economic force” to dismantle the international border between the two countries, including aggressively steep tariffs on Canadian-made goods. On one hand, I appreciate the urge some Canadians may feel to scoff at Trump’s comments and the remarkably poor understanding of law and economics that they very obviously betray. On the other hand, however, I wonder if some of Canada’s responses to these threats stand to exacerbate longstanding domestic political tensions between Ottawa and Alberta.

            As part and parcel of his pledge to ‘make America great again,’ Trump has sought to encourage (read: bully) Canada to ‘take seriously’ the security of its border with the United States. Alleging that there is somehow an unrestricted flow of both undocumented migrants and controlled substances (namely fentanyl) from Canada into the United States, Trump has threated the imposition of a steep 25% tariff on Canadian-made consumer goods unless Canada ‘closes up its borders.’ Given that the United States is Canada’s largest trading partner, it is – perhaps – unsurprising that federal officials in Ottawa would find these economic threats incredibly concerning. Thus, Canadian officials and political leaders across the country have been considering all the political and legal responses available. Speaking confidentially to CBCNews, senior officials in Ottawa disclosed that Ottawa is considering fighting Trump’s tariffs with tariffs of their own on American-made goods like steel, ceramics, glass, and even orange juice.

            In addition to these possible Canadian-imposed tariffs, politicians in Canada have considered weaponizing the energy sector. Ontario Premier Doug Ford, for example, has said that his government will ‘use every tool in its toolbox,’ including halting Ontario’s energy exports to the United States. “We will go to the extent of cutting off their energy, going down to Michigan, going down to New York State and over to Wisconsin,” Ford told reporters in December. Similarly, in a recent interview with CTV News, Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly was asked whether the federal government was prepared to engage in an energy export embargo to the United States. Joly’s response echoed Premier Ford’s: “Everything is on the table.” The decision to put ‘everything on the table,’ however, comes at a steep political (and possibly legal) cost.

            In Canada, any discussion of the energy sector must include the province of Alberta, which is the largest producer of oil and gas in the country. In 2023, 97% of Canada’s crude oil production was exported to the United States, with 87% of that oil produced in Alberta. The oil and gas industry accounts for approximately 20% of Alberta’s GDP and approximately 6% of its total employment, making it central to the province’s economy. Mindful of these statistics then, it is easier to understand why Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has been on her own ‘goodwill tour’ in the United States in a (likely) effort to secure Alberta’s oil and gas exports some sort of exemption to Trump’s threatened tariffs. Additionally, it also becomes easier to understand why federal officials using the language of ‘embargos’ and ‘bans’ in the context of the oil and gas industry very easily sparks the ire of Albertans and their political leaders. Responding to Joly’s comments, Smith told reporters, “Oil and gas is owned by the provinces, principally Alberta, and we won’t stand for that…I can’t predict what Albertans would do.”

            A couple points in Smith’s comment merit discussion. First, Smith is correct to point out that oil and gas resources do belong to the Canadian provinces. Section 92(A) of the Canadian Constitution Act, 1867 grants provincial governments control over the “development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources” within their respective borders. However, it is the federal Parliament that ultimately controls “general trade and commerce” as per the powers granted under s.91(2). While courts have considered this federal power a number of times over the years, it has generally been held that power to govern in the sphere of international trade rests in the hands of the federal government, not the provinces (Citizens Insurance v Parsons, for example). And so, while Alberta may ‘own’ its oil and gas reserves, its actual legal capacity to act, should Ottawa decide to implement some sort of embargo, may be limited. (Though, I imagine clever government lawyers may find some equally clever way to challenge this in court – should it happen.)

            Second, Smith told reporters that she was unsure what Albertans would do. If the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour, we may be able to speculate on this point. Albertans and their governments have – for decades – been fiercely protective of their province’s control over its natural gas and oil reserves, resisting federal efforts that have had the potential to diminish either provincial control over the resources or the province’s capacity to profit from them. Indeed, many Canadians (especially Albertans) still recall the political and legal battles fought between former Progressive Conservative Premier Peter Lougheed and Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the 1980s concerning the National Energy Program. These debates have come to inform the narrative of ‘Western alienation’ that explains (in part) why Liberal Party candidates have found little electoral success in Alberta for decades – and Alberta’s relationship with Ottawa has, regardless of the political personalities at play, remained conflictual at best. In light of this fairly recent political history, it is possible that many Albertans will feel that their province’s wellbeing is once again put up for sacrifice on the metaphorical altar of Liberal Party politicking.

            As a final word, it is important to note that it is still a bit too early to predict whether Trump’s incoming administration will make good on its threats and what exactly Ottawa will do to respond. Should Ottawa choose to deploy its power to halt energy exports to the United States, it would likely spark a level of anti-Ottawa, anti-Liberal Party sentiment not seen in the province for more than 30 years – ironically, under the first Prime Minister Trudeau. What does seem clear, however, is that a 25% tariff on Canadian goods in the United States would wreak havoc on the Canadian economy. For all our sakes, I hope it doesn’t come to this.