The last few weeks may have at least buried any remaining notion that Canadian leaders can exert much control over the current president of the United States.
Six-and-a-half years ago, when Trump’s first administration imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum, the Conservatives declared that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was a “failure.”
“What is his plan to fix this tariff issue?” Erin O’Toole, the party’s foreign affairs critic, asked.
As recently as last fall, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre was touting the fact that Stephen Harper, a Conservative prime minister, had secured gains and reprieves from George W. Bush and Barack Obama where Trudeau had failed to do likewise with Donald Trump — which is a bit like suggesting that your family’s history of raising iguanas means you’re qualified to handle a velociraptor.
If there is a “fix” to the tariff issue, it is once again proving elusive — not only for the prime minister, but for the leaders of every other country that currently exports steel and aluminum to the United States. And by the end of this week the list of countries looking for a fix could include every member of the European Union.
In Canada’s case, Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum comes despite the existence of a free trade agreement that he himself signed and celebrated in 2018. It also comes in defiance of the fact he came to an agreement with the Trudeau government in 2019 to lift the previous iteration of these same tariffs.
The re-imposition of tariffs now would demonstrate that any “fix” with Trump is only temporary.
Can economics control Trump?
Which is not to say Canadian leaders shouldn’t bother trying to persuade the president that tariffs would be a bad idea. The federal government is more or less obliged to make every effort to convince the American administration to not take actions that would harm this country. And prime ministers can still be judged by how much or how little they are willing to do in response to American demands.
They can also be judged how smartly and thoughtfully they respond if and when tariffs are imposed.
But no matter how many czars the prime minister appoints, the president may still decide to disregard Canada’s arguments. And while that has perhaps always been somewhat true, it seems particularly true now — and the realm of what the American president might possibly do also seems wider than it has ever been.
If anything can control Trump’s actions, it might be the U.S. stock market or the American consumer — both of which will have to deal with the impact that both the president’s tariffs and any Canadian retaliation will have on the highly integrated North American economy.
The previous round of steel and aluminum tariffs may offer a guide to what that impact might be.
According to one study, those tariffs may have led to an increase in production for American steel and aluminum producers, but that boost was more than offset by higher costs for companies that use steel and aluminum. According to another estimate, the tariffs boosted American employment in steel production by 1,000 jobs, while reducing employment in manufacturing by 75,000 jobs.
In theory, the threat or reality of those negative impacts might dissuade the Trump administration from following through — or at least limit how long they are willing to keep the tariffs in place. Then again, if the Trump administration is truly intent on ushering in a new “golden age” for American steel and aluminum, then the tariffs may not go away easily.
Either way, the threat to Canada’s sovereignty may be very real. And to that end, Canada’s leaders might best focus on what they can control.
What Canadians can control
“In this situation, there are things we can control and things we can’t,” Mark Carney, the presumptive front-runner in the Liberal leadership, told reporters in Regina on Tuesday. “We can’t totally predict the actions of the United States or even the motivations of the United States. We can control how we invest in this country, we can control how we build partnerships internationally. And that’s first and foremost what we should concentrate on.”
A day earlier, in Iqaluit, Poilievre was touting new military investments in the North as a means to asserting control.
In response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s continued taunts about Canada’s lack of military strength, Opposition Leader Pierre Poilievre detailed his plan to better protect and defend the North.
“If we are to be a sovereign, self-reliant nation, we must take control of our North, secure all of our borders and stand on our own two feet,” he said. “We cannot count on the Americans to do it for us anymore.”
Since Trump’s re-election, Poilievre has described his agenda as “Canada First” — a slogan seemingly spun off from Trump’s notion of “America First.” Carney has lately taken to saying Canadians must be “master of our own house,” which recalls the rallying cry — maîtres chez nous — of the Quiet Revolution in Quebec in the 1960s.
This nascent nationalism has already found some common ground. Rarely, if ever, has there been so much enthusiasm for eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. And there is some consensus that military spending needs to be increased as expeditiously as possible.
Asked whether Canada should retaliate against President Donald Trump’s tariffs on steel and aluminum, Liberal leadership contender Mark Carney said Canada has many cards to play, and if he leads the next government he will pursue the options ‘that are best for Canada.’
But ground for significant debate is also emerging.
Even if nearly everyone agrees on the need to spend more on national defence, how should the federal government pay for that?
There are hints of renewed interest in building new pipelines to transport oil and gas across the country, either to increase Canada’s energy independence or in hopes of selling those resources to new international customers. What if such infrastructure requires public funding? And under what environmental laws and emissions policies would these pipelines be built?
In promising to increase Canada’s military presence in the Arctic, Poilievre said he would fund those investments by “dramatically” cutting foreign aid. What that would actually mean in practice is unclear (Canada spent $16 billion on foreign aid in 2022-23, more than a third of which went to Ukraine).
But in a world where Canada might have an even greater need for friends — and where the United States is abandoning much of its historic contribution to global peace and security — does it make sense for Canada to reduce its international commitments?
Canadians know they can’t control the geography that has made Canada and the United States neighbours. They long ago learned they can’t control how Americans vote and they may be learning that Canadians have only limited control over what the American president does — even when it directly affects this country.
But Canadians can still control what kind of country they want to build beside this new version of the United States. And that is what now seems to be on the ballot in the next federal election.
