Is Canada to Blame? Trump’s Trade Dispute Seems Unjustified

Canada has long been known as a non-aggressive nation, but how is this approach serving it?

President Donald Trump has issued more threatening remarks regarding Canada than he has toward Russia.

He is employing a powerful tactic — hefty 25% tariffs — that could potentially plunge our Friendly Neighbor to the North into a recession, instilling genuine fear among its leaders and citizens concerning the United States.

The madman theory may be effective against groups such as Hamas or the Houthis, but historically, it hasn’t been viewed as an effective method for engaging with Ottawa.

We must acknowledge the severity of the threat Trump is posing. Approximately three-quarters of Canada’s exports are directed to the United States, making up 20% of Canada’s GDP.

The Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market think tank, warns that a 25% tariff would expose the Canadian economy to “the biggest external shock in a century (aside from the initial phases of the COVID pandemic).”

This level of aggression is typically reserved for larger nations confronting a rogue state for developing nuclear weapons, invading neighboring countries, or committing serious human rights violations.

Canada’s only “offense” is being a party to a free trade agreement — the USCMA — which it negotiated in good faith with the very US president now pressuring it.

Proponents of Trump’s trade policies often reference China as an example of why pure free-trade theory fails in reality — an authoritarian regime that engages in rampant intellectual property theft and other unfair practices, making it unpredictable in crisis situations.

None of these issues pertain to Canada, a cooperative, English-speaking nation that shares our values and stands alongside us in military efforts, rather than opposing us.

While legitimate concerns about Canada exist, issues like the fentanyl trade and illegal border crossings are not among them (Canada is not Mexico).

Indeed, Canada does protect certain politically sensitive sectors, such as dairy and lumber. These topics have long been part of US-Canada negotiations.

Regardless of one’s opinion on Canada’s dairy policies, they do not justify the declaration of an emergency as defined by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump is invoking for his tariff threats.

An actual emergency would entail Canada, for example, launching a military assault on the upper peninsula of Michigan.

At the very least, Trump is certainly making waves in Canadian politics.

It isn’t merely the risk of burdensome tariffs; it’s the idea of Canada becoming the 51st state — once a humorous quip, now bearing an unsettling tone given Trump’s continued emphasis on it.

This is, at best, a sign of disrespect, and at worst, a veiled threat.

Why does this matter? It bolsters Justin Trudeau’s party in upcoming elections while undermining conservative populist Pierre Poilievre.

Trump seems to believe he can compel Canada to acquiesce to annexation through economic pressure.

In reality, the more we antagonize Canada and destabilize its economy, the stronger the anti-US sentiment is likely to grow.

Trump should accept that greater Canadian involvement in combating fentanyl and border concerns (albeit minor) is a victory, while postponing discussions of Canadian trade practices until next year, coinciding with the scheduled review of the USMCA.

Our top priority with Canada should be encouraging it to increase military spending.

In doing so, we should strengthen what is already an exceptionally close defense partnership — particularly regarding our interests in the Arctic — rather than letting unnecessary hostility fester.

As John F. Kennedy famously remarked, “Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.”

Regrettably, the current occupant of the Oval Office has a different vision.

Twitter: @RichLowry