Willis C. Hawley (left) and Reed Smoot meeting shortly after the signing of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Photo by National Photo Company/Wikimedia Commons/Postmedia files
Article content
President Trump’s support for high tariffs and disdain for free trade harkens back to a much older policy — the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930.
Article content
Tariffs would have huge impact on housing market: Ron Butler
0 of 6 minutes, 58 secondsVolume 0%
Article content
Fans of the movie Ferris Bueller’s Day Off will remember the nasal voice of Ben Stein’s bespectacled economics teacher delivering a droning lecture on Smoot-Hawley. Stein later revealed director John Hughes asked him to ad-lib the bit in an off-camera reading with the students in the classroom, who “thought it was the most boring thing they’d ever heard.”
Article content
Advertisement 1
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
But Smoot-Hawley is certainly stirring up some buzz today.
Article content
Top Stories
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
Inizio modulo
Sign Up
Fine modulo
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.
Article content
For those unfamiliar with ye old Act, Smoot-Hawley was named for Senator Reed Smoot of Utah, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Willis Hawley of Oregon, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, who pushed for higher tariffs to protect domestic farmers.
Article content
More than 1,000 economists protested the bill to then-United States President Herbert Hoover, but he signed it anyway, which amped up tariffs on foreign exports to the U.S. by about 20 per cent.
Article content
The result was that it greatly diminished global trade — and, some experts argue, exacerbated the effects of the Great Depression.
Article content
How did the Smoot-Hawley Act come to be?
Article content
Robert Bothwell, an emeritus professor of Canadian history at the University of Toronto, said the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was just another example of the “beggar-thy-neighbour” policies favoured by the United States in the 1930s. These policies sought to protect or improve the domestic economy at the expense of other countries.
Article content
Bothwell also explained that, at the time, Congress held considerable power and was more involved with tariffs, while the executive branch had a more limited role and typically went along with what Congress wanted.
Article content
Advertisement 2
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
Article content
In 1930, the Republican party held the White House and Republican protectionists controlled the House Ways and Means Committee, which was advocating for high tariffs.
Article content
Stories You May Like
Canadian businesses in U.S. could pay for digital services tax
How Trump's tariff war could hit Canadians' wallets
- Advertisement embed-more-topic
Article content
The bill, originally aimed at protecting American farmers by taxing agricultural imports, soon spiralled out of control, with representatives from various sectors calling for increased protection as well.
Article content
How did Canada and other countries respond?
Article content
Numerous countries, including Canada, retaliated with tariffs of their own. In 1929, 18 per cent of America’s exports went to Canada, which also accounted for 11 per cent of its imports.
Article content
Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King initially matched the Smoot-Hawley tariffs on just 16 products, amounting to 30 per cent of imports from the United States. But when R.B. Bennett took over the Canadian government in 1930, he raised tariffs on American imports even further, while also cutting them on about 270 products from the United Kingdom and its colonies and dominions.
Article content
In 1932, Ottawa hosted the British colonies and dominions to discuss the economic downturn and strengthen trade relations between themselves. “It’s a classic trade negotiation, where you’re trading off one concession against another, but the effect is very much to establish an economic sphere where the Americans are not present,” Bothwell explained.
Advertisement 1
This advertisement has not loaded yet.
Trending
First Shockwaves of Trump's Tariffs Are About to Hit the World Economy
China pivots from U.S. to Canada for more oil as trade war worsens
Sale of Canadian products outpacing total sales, says Metro CEO
'Genuine animosity towards us': Is the world losing faith in the almighty U.S. dollar?
Opinion: Canada comes second last out of 20 countries in new health-care ranking
Advertisement 2
Advertisement
Article content
Canada, for example, started selling markedly more of its exports to the United Kingdom and reducing its exports to the United States. Agricultural exports made up about half of Canada’s increased exports to the United Kingdom, according to The Globe archives from 1932.
Article content
Article content
Between 1929 to 1933, U.S. real GDP plunged nearly 30 per cent, while the unemployment rate spiked at 25 per cent. When the next U.S. election rolled around in 1933, voter sentiment for Republicans had soured.
Article content
Franklin D. Roosevelt of the Democratic party took over the presidency and in 1934 signed the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA), which advocated for strengthened international trade and presidential authority to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements, marking a significant shift in U.S. trade policy. The RTAA also temporarily allowed the president to decrease or increase tariffs by up to 50 per cent of the levels set by Smoot-Hawley in exchange for concessions from other countries.
Article content
And ultimately, Bothwell said, the RTAA fostered a new trading relationship with Canada.
Article content
“Since 1935, the Canadian-American trading relationship, through a whole variety of arrangements and treaties, has been reciprocal,” he said. “It’s based on negotiation and trade and concessions, but also underneath it, the idea that trade is good, and the ‘beggar thy neighbor’ is a stupid policy in which everybody loses.”
Article content
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
How are things different today?
Article content
Bothwell said Trump’s vision for trade is taking the U.S. back to a previous century. But one key difference is that Trump views tariffs as a “weapon of power” rather than protecting local economies, as was the aim of the Smoot-Hawley Act.
Article content
Andreas Schotter, a professor of international business at the Ivey Business School, said Trump is using tariffs as a bargaining chip in non-trade issues, such as immigration, currency dominance and geopolitics, “which could lead to more complex and unpredictable retaliations” from other countries.
Article content
Schotter noted that during Smoot-Hawley tariffs, the global economy was not as integrated as it is today. “It’s different now, and we have a much more complex and complicated relationship in global trade that includes parts and semi-finished products and so on, where the supply and value chains are cross-border integrated, and in this case, particularly between Canada and the United States.”
Article content
He foresees issues in the American manufacturing space in particular, since the U.S.does not have the labour to fill advanced manufacturing roles, especially in the midst of the immigration crackdown.
Article content
Advertisement 4
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
The effect of Trump’s tariffs would be inflationary and could “absolutely” lead to an economic downturn, Schotter emphasized, adding that it could have economic, political and geopolitical consequences. He predicts the tariffs would accelerate the ongoing decoupling between the U.S. and China, which could pose a major issue for the former since it benefits from global trade.
Article content
“We have seen for some years already the reversal (of) a global political economic system, going from a free-trade-for-all system to a fragmented (one),” Schotter said. “This is just a continuation of that on an escalation at the highest level.”
Article content
How can Canada respond today?
Article content
Bothwell noted that Canada has a much larger economy today than it did in 1930, and therefore stands a better chance of supporting itself through domestic production and consumption.
Article content
Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly recently said removing interprovincial trade barriers was going to be part of Canada’s response to Trump’s tariff threat.
Article content
Canadian political leaders have also prepared a list of retaliatory tariffs they could implement if the United States goes ahead with its plan for 25 per cent tariffs on Canadian goods.
Advertisement 2
This advertisement has not loaded yet.
Advertisement 3
Story continues below
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.
Article content
But unlike in the 1930s, it might be more difficult for Canada to expand its trade relations with other countries to offset the impact. During the early 20th century, Canada still had a fairly strong trade relationship with the United Kingdom: A 1930 trade report shows about $472 million in trade between the two countries, with about $1.4 billion traded between Canada and the U.S., which is about three times as much.
Article content
In recent years, trade between Canada and the U.K. was valued at just $47 billion, compared to the over $960 billion traded with the U.S. — 20 times greater.
Article content
“We missed a real opportunity to position Canada and Canadian firms on a more global scale,” said Schotter, noting that Canada grew complacent in its trade relationship with the U.S. “Now everybody’s running around like chickens with their heads chopped off, and that’s not a good thing.”
Article content
• Email: slouis@postmedia.com
Article content
Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.
Article content
Advertisement 3
This advertisement has not loaded yet.
Share this article in your social network
Comments
You must be logged in to join the discussion or read more comments.
Join the Conversation
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion. Please keep comments relevant and respectful. Comments may take up to an hour to appear on the site. You will receive an email if there is a reply to your comment, an update to a thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information.
Follow this conversation to be notified when new comments are postedfollow
All Comments 4
NEWEST
All Comments
- Comment by James Bolt.
JB
James BoltFebruary 1, 2025
The only one completely unfamiliar with tariffs is Donald Trump.
All he knows is that they are something he can actually do as opposed to not being able to get anything through Congress
1 1
share
report
Advertisement
- Comment by P. Robert Dooley.
PR
P. Robert DooleyFebruary 1, 2025
Another interesting point was most countries were on the Gold standard. No currency floated: it was valued or devalued as gold coinage was available.
Since people didn't trust banks, they hoarded gold and weakened the economy further depressing prices, hence "the great depression"
"If I can't sell what I produce, why should I produce?" further weakening the economy as we see today in devalued CAD.
Trudeau's Green Regime restricts production of goods so they are offshored and we are in a degrowth economy today exporting raw resources and importing finished goods because the Liberals are terrified of CO2 "emissions" that cannot cause warming from fuels that vegetation absorbs 95% and gives us oxygen.
The "science" behind economic policy is destroying the Canadian economy.
Read more
0 0
share
report
- Comment by Martin Vierula.
MV
Martin VierulaFebruary 1, 2025
'some experts argue'
That dramatically understates things.
In fact, there is an overwhelming consensus amongst economists that those tariffs exacerbated the Great Depression.
1 1
share
report
- Comment by Jonathan Quick.
JQ
Jonathan QuickFebruary 1, 2025
Have I been speaking Greek, when I said I'd cut tariffs on steel and aluminum and various other imports from other nations.
Sounds oddly like what Mackenzie King was doing.
I told you people, I know all about statecraft, and have already read all the history books, but many of my ideas are unique and imaginative in their own right.
Joly said that removing inter-provincial barriers to trade was on the agenda. And yet what have the Liberals done for 10 years?
Bubkis.
Every since O'Toole, I was talking about creating an infrastructure highway that facilitates the flow of all liquids and gases, as well as conduits, permanently creating a road that would eliminate the need to negotiate rights of ways for every pipeline.
Joly hasn't come up with anything as intelligent and even if she did, the Liberals did nothing except talk about DEI and woke for the past 10 years.
365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4
© 2025 Financial Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized distribution, transmission or republication strictly prohibited.
Bottom links
Privacy PolicyTerms of UseCopyrightDigital Ad RegistryFAQSitemapContact us