Addressing questions last weekend regarding stagnated U.S.-Canada trade negotiations and his most recent conversation with President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney *responded*, “Who cares? It’s a detail. I’ll speak to him again when it matters.”
Several days subsequently, amid backlash and accusations of not treating the matter with due gravity, Carney *qualified* his remarks, labelling them “a poor choice of words about a serious issue.” A serious matter, undeniably. For Canada, engaging with Trump presents almost an existential challenge—touching on issues of sovereignty, economic stability, and international strategy.
Carney’s abruptness might be justifiable. The previous month, Trump *levied* an extra 10% tariff on Canadian products and halted discussions following an advertisement by the province of Ontario on American TV channels, which cited former U.S. President Ronald Reagan stating that tariffs “hurt every American.” The advertisement incensed Trump, who denounced it as a “FRAUD.” Carney has since *distanced himself from* the ad, and Trump has *paused action* on the additional tariff.
Trump’s assertions serve as a stark reminder of the difficulties confronting Carney and Canada. A year prior, as Trump geared up for his potential return to power, Canada was conspicuously targeted. Trump *suggested* Canada ought to become the “51st state,” and tariffs present a severe danger to a nation that dispatches *the majority* of its exports across the southern border. Trade accounts for *a substantial share* of Canada’s GDP.
Carney, *a prominent economist and former central banker*, has been working to lower or abolish U.S. tariffs before the *scheduled review* of USMCA next year. However, accomplishing this goal might prove as elusive as Waiting for Godot. Carney is scheduled to visit the U.S. next week for the FIFA World Cup draw, and *is expected to engage with U.S. officials*. Yet, he mentioned his reluctance to oversignal, and the U.S. has not *indicated progress* on trade discussions.
As the likelihood of an agreement with Trump *recedes*, Carney has *undertaken measures* to sustain vital sectors, and his administration is strengthening relationships with other countries. This encompasses nations with whom Canada had, until recently, experienced diplomatic impasses.
A significant instance emerged last weekend with the announcement that Canada and India are *re-engaging in* trade negotiations—with the objective of elevating bilateral trade to $50 billion by 2030. This marks a considerable departure from only two years prior, when the administration of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged the Indian government’s *complicity* in the killing of a Sikh Canadian within Canada. This *dispute* led the two nations to *downgrade diplomatic relations*.
Furthermore, Carney *met* last month with Chinese leader Xi Jinping—representing the initial high-level interaction between the two countries in eight years—aiming to “resolve outstanding trade issues and irritants.” Relations had deteriorated when Canadian authorities in 2018 *detained* Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou based on a U.S. warrant for bank fraud. China swiftly thereafter apprehended—and subsequently released—Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig on what Ottawa termed “*arbitrary*” espionage accusations. While all three were released in 2021, strains between the two nations persisted.
Presently, Canada finds itself with limited options other than to cultivate trade relationships with a broader array of nations, given the unique challenge presented by Trump. Nevertheless, even economically, trade diversification offers restricted benefits—at least in the immediate and intermediate future.
Furthermore, Canada should contemplate the boundaries of its trade relations, should it choose to establish any. It cannot conduct all its commerce, for instance, with New Zealand. Instead, Canada requires a more profound discussion about its trade partners and the extent of those partnerships, rather than merely responding to Trump’s actions.
Commenting on Canada’s altered stance in its dealings with India, Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand *asserted* it signified “a completely new approach to foreign policy that is responsive to the global economic environment in which we find ourselves.” This statement was an unmistakable allusion to Trump and the global free trade framework that Carney has *declared* is effectively defunct.
These *developments collectively indicate* Canada’s transition into an era of realpolitik, perhaps less idealistic and, some might argue, less principled than its foreign and trade policy of previous years, but firmly geared towards the fundamental objective of national prosperity. As the saying goes, one cannot subsist on principles alone.
