Donald Trump’s threat to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian products — combined with his denigration of Canadian sovereignty, including his recent threat to take the country “by economic force” — has Canadians rightly concerned.
Unfortunately, the federal government’s initial reactions to Trump 2.0 have not inspired confidence.
(X/@JustinTrudeau)
The tone was set with what longtime Liberal strategist Peter Donolo called outgoing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s “panicked — and demeaning — pilgrimage” to Mar-a-Lago.
The government’s $1.3 billion border measures — including “an aerial intelligence task force with more helicopters and drones” and a “North American joint strike force” to combat organized crime — are, in a sense, even worse: answers to problems that exist only in Donald Trump’s fevered imagination.
The trade deficit, a source of concern
Trump’s claims about illegal immigration (rising in recent years, but well below levels seen at the US-Mexico border) and fentanyl imports (less than 20 kilograms in 2023) intercepted by the United States on its northern border) are ridiculous. The Canadian authorities know this.
Trump’s real problem is the US trade deficit with Canada.
These border policies are problematic in themselves. But they will not buy peace either, because it is not a political question, but an exercise of domination for the pleasure of domination.
(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)
What will be sacrificed?
Appeasement—figuring out Trump’s price and paying it—won’t work. What will a Liberal or Conservative government sacrifice in the name of keeping the border open to trade? How far can we go?
A policy of appeasement will also poison the democratic exercise. With every policy and law passed, Canadians will question whether their governments are acting in the interests of Canadians or those of Trump.
This is Canada’s unenviable political dilemma for at least the next four years: how to deal with an increasingly hostile United States while acting, and being seen to act, in Canada’s best interests.
Canadian elected officials must draw and recognize the limits between the national interest and the risks that a policy of appeasement goes against sovereignty.
Fortunately, history provides some guidance. This is not the first time that the United States has posed an existential economic threat to Canada. Two crises in particular, occurring 136 years apart, offer important lessons for the next four years and beyond.
Lesson One: Always Have a Plan
Our first lesson: having the right answers to existing problems.
The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States changed Americans’ perceptions of their two borders. Security thus became a major concern, supplanting the then dominant ideology in favor of open borders and cross-border trade.
The threat to the Canadian economy was as clear then as it is today. Suddenly, the United States demanded action from both neighbors on the border. Only problem: The Americans didn’t have a plan, because, ironically, they had never paid much attention to border infrastructure.
(AP Photo/Ted S. Warre
Fortunately for Canada, Canadian officials had long been thinking about how to modernize the border and were pushing the United States to take border security seriously. Therefore, when the United States rediscovered its northern border, Canada had a policy ready to deploy.
-The resulting agreement addressed both Canada’s economic and U.S. security interests. Key elements of the agreement were based on proposals that Canada had advocated for years.
The federal government responded well to the shock of 9/11 because it had policies ready to be implemented when needed. The ruling Liberals took charge of the planning, making the national interest their priority.
The Canadian and American economies are as intertwined as they were in 2001 — if not more so. This means that Canada’s federal and provincial governments must develop policies free from improvisation. Responses to imminent requests from the United States will thus be made in the best interest of the country.
Lesson Two: Focus on the Home Front
Lesson two: look east, west and north, but not south.
As I have said before, the interdependence between Canada and the United States, once our greatest strength, has turned into a vulnerability.
But, again, we’ve been there before.
In 1866, the United States abrogated the Canada-US Reciprocity Treaty with British North America. Then, as now, the American economy exerted a strong pull on the British colonies to the north.
But this attraction is not a natural phenomenon. It is governed by laws and treaties. Uncertain trade flows may be interrupted. It was just such an interruption that partly prompted Canadian political leaders to unite in Confederation, leading to the birth of Canada.
Trump’s tariff threat, like the events of 1866, should remind Canadians that access to the American market can be hindered or even eliminated. It can never be 100% guaranteed. Today, as it did more than 150 years ago, Canada must reinvest in building trans-Canadian economic, political and cultural ties.
Particularly important areas are energy — 70% of Ontario’s natural gas in 2023 came from the United States, manufacturing and domestic trade.
(AP Photo/Paul Sancya)
A way forward
For Canadian elected officials, these history lessons offer interesting perspectives for the future. For citizens, they constitute a point of reference for judging the relations of our governments with the United States.
We must ensure that our proposals aimed at responding to the concerns of the United States are well planned and that they promote Canadian interests. And that governments strengthen interregional ties.
Following these two lessons will require a level of planning that Canadians have not experienced since the 1960s. It also means strengthening state capacity, and thoughtful debates about what citizens want their country to become. It also involves a degree of strategic thinking that is difficult to currently find among our elected officials.
However, they would have an interest in being proactive — and taking note of a situation that was not chosen by Canada in order to decide what to do with it.
