Liberals’ job just got a lot harder

On virtually every issue, he is diametrically opposed to the Canadian government.

Regardless of any ideological objections, there can be few doubts in Ottawa that he will back the president’s position on steel and aluminum tariffs aimed at, in Trump’s words, “countries that treat us the worst on trade and on military.”

Trump has already linked Canada’s exemption to a satisfactory conclusion of NAFTA negotiations — and that seems to require a remedy to what he calls the “highly restrictive” treatment of America’s farmers on dairy, eggs and poultry, courtesy of Canada’s supply management system.

Given his voting record, Pompeo is unlikely to view Canadian protectionism with any degree of empathy, no matter how much the U.S. subsidizes its own farmers.

Canada may be on slightly firmer ground on military spending — the other explicit link to tariff exemptions made by Trump.

Last June, Canada said it would spend an extra $60 billion over 20 years, taking military expenditure as a share of GDP to 1.4 per cent by 2024/25. The plan to add capability was reportedly well-received in Washington and helps explain, in part, the generally good odour in which Canada is held.

While this increase falls short of the NATO’s two per cent target, it does represent a 20 per cent increase over time and an end to absolute spending declines.

Or it would if it were enacted as promised. But the plan requires a quadrupling of capital spending over six years to $13 billion, after years of spending not much over $3 billion.

The first-year capital spending allocation has already fallen short of the $6 billion forecast in the defence review documents and there are serious doubts about whether the National Defence department has the capacity to spend the amount allocated.

The Trudeau government has already proven it can do business with an administration with which it disagrees profoundly on just about every issue.

But with Pompeo’s promotion, that task just became much harder.

The Liberals have backed themselves into a corner by saying defence of supply management is one of their “red lines.”

That may be a promise they cannot keep. It may prove that continued shelter from the storm comes at the price of liberalizing protected sectors of the economy and actually spending the money already pledged on the nation’s defence.