Friend or Faux? Managing the End of the “Special Relationship”
Published in Hill Times Friend or Faux
Friend or Faux? Managing the End of the “Special Relationship”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to resign as leader of the Liberal party in response to growing political and public pressure comes at a crucial time for Canada, both domestically and internationally. Donald Trump’s looming tariffs have forced Trudeau’s government to regroup and select a leader to counter the Conservatives in the next election and push back against Trump’s protectionist trade agenda.
These dynamics set the stage for intensified competition between two front- runners, former Finance (and Foreign) Minister Chrystia Freeland and Conservative party leader Pierre Poilievre.
The race is now Polievre’s to win, according to all general election polling, his party carries a commanding lead over the liberals. Poilievre, has stated that a response to Trump’s tariffs would require working with “American economic allies on the ground” to put pressure on Washington to back down. Poilievre is opposed to retaliatory tariffs that would impact Canada’s petroleum industry, arguing that Canada should build more refineries and bypass the U.S. market. To his thinking, Trump would then be compelled to buy oil from countries such as Venezuela and Iran.
When he does dip a toe into broader foreign policy it is hawkish. Back in October, Poilievre said that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would be, in his words, “a gift by the Jewish state to humanity,” a position more extreme than that held by many members of the U.S. Congress.
Like the new President in the White House Poilievre has consistently opposed climate change policies, such as the carbon tax, and, like Trump, he is enthusiastic about fossil fuel exports. He has been critical of work related to corporate interests that is not conducive to the exploitation of energy and real estate while the core issues are the decline of Canadian innovation and competitiveness including investments in Tier 1 manufacturing and intellectual property research where the country is lagging.
Poilievre’s populist approach to small government and divisiveness dates back to the last Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper. Harper reduced Canada’s presence in multilateral institutions while extolling the virtues of becoming a “warrior nation.”
As Foreign Minister, Freeland did not play any significant role at the United Nations. Nor did she provide guidance on how Canada could recast its place in the world when it was most desperately needed. Canada failed to secure free trade agreements with both China and India, while also losing a seat on the UN Security Council.
Today, Canada’s foreign policy positions and policies have become mirror images of US interests, whether these pertain to regime challenges in Venezuela, Myanmar, Syria and Iran, sanctioning geopolitical rivals Russia and China or more recently implementing a common Asia Pacific strategy. There are of course some exceptions, such as Canada’s long- standing opposition to the U.S. embargo on Cuba.
This lack of independent diplomatic engagement comes at a time when America is either withdrawing from or scaling back its contributions to key organizations and global compacts such as the World Health Organization, the Paris Climate Agreement, the United Nations, and the World Trade Organization.
Today, Canada’s foreign policy establishment finds itself desperately playing catch- up to an ambitious Trump agenda, coming to terms with the fact that its southern neighbor, which Freeland described as the “indispensable nation,” is now in a position to inflict significant harm on the Canadian economy.
As Finance Minister, Freeland chose a particular strategy, post-COVID, to more closely align the Canadian economy with the U.S. through “friend– shoring,” while at the same time committing Canada to reducing supply chains in support of delinking from China in favor of building “Fortress North America.”
Freeland has been openly critical of Donald Trump which did not help Canada’s cause during the CUSMA negotiations. Although the trash talk continues to play well domestically, the lack of substance and self-awareness is telling. Canadian perceptions of Trump’s threats of economic coercion as distinctly anti-Canadian, overlook their roots in broader U.S. self-interest that existed long before Donald Trump came to power.
For example, within the G7, the U.S. share of wealth over the last 20 years has risen significantly from 33% to over 55%. This shift drives foreign investment toward the U.S., to the detriment of other G7 nations, including Canada. The rise in U.S. economic dominance within the G7 contrasts with the G7’s overall decline relative to the BRICS nations. Over the past two decades, the BRICS economies have grown to match G7 economies in global GDP share.
At the same time, Canada’s GDP per capita has declined relative to the U.S. Regional supply chains tied to America have increased dependency, but fail to address Canada’s weak manufacturing base and low productivity. Despite promises to leverage immigration for growth, Canada struggles to retain skilled STEM graduates, marking a failure of economic policy.
In a nutshell, there are some obvious and important distinctions between Pierre Poilievre and Chrystia Freeland. But there are also some very significant and uncomfortable similarities. Indeed, the diplomatic approach taken by both individuals is likely to be more of the same in following the U.S. lead on defense and security.
One overlooked question, is whether a Canadian Prime Minister will act as a moderating voice for a Trump administration that has the potential to become bellicose and divisive. On the one hand, Trump has signaled a mixed message of bringing restraint to U.S. foreign policy, by ending its forever wars, a goal Joe Biden proved incapable of reaching.
A positive shift from Trump could become an opportunity for Canada to renew its diplomatic mandate, developing a much different foreign policy agenda better matched to the realities of a more polycentric and regional world fatigued by constant wars involving the U.S. and its allies.
On the other hand, there is the close-knit relationship between neo-conservative U.S. elites and think tanks whose opinions on China, Iran, and Russia are unambiguously hostile, and the support and endorsements political leaders like Freeland and Poilievre receive from these think tanks and elites.
Canada’s next Prime Minister must take Canada towards self-assured and more autonomous statecraft. If Trump stays true to his promise of ending forever wars it is not at all clear that Pierre Poilievre and Chrystia Freeland are up to this challenge because of their close ties to American agendas that favor confrontation over shared responsibility.
Unlike Pierre Poilievre whose capacity for responsible statecraft is untested , Chrystia Freeland has shown a fondness for building coalitions opposing adversaries, in contrast to engaging in real diplomatic dialogue with those adversaries. Not only does exclusion reflect a zero-sum framing and a pack mentality that rewards ideology and Manichaean thinking, it is also inherently risky and destabilizing
David Carment