An Undeniably Abusive Relationship

 

It should be clear to most Canadians by now that we are in a pernicious, abusive relationship with the United States. And as often occurs in such relationships, we go through a period, sometimes protracted, when we seek peace with the abuser, either justifying their abuse or going to great lengths to try to placate and appease them. All studies in such relationships suggest those are losing strategies; healing can only begin when we both acknowledge the abuse and, as much as possible, minimize our contact with the partner that so despises us.

Commendably, Prime Minister Mark Carney has expended considerable effort into widening our support network of new trading partners, efforts that will bear much fruit in the future. However, in many ways we are still in the denial/appeasement stages of our relationship with America, as I have written many times on this blog - caving to American demands on the Gordie Howe Bridge (which Carney misrepresented to the public), ditching the digital services tax, not filing complaints over unfair trading practices and widespread violations of CUSMA, etc. This behaviour, despite earning nothing but more abuse and more demands from an implacable Trump, suggest that it is well past time we started showing some national self-respect. 

Political Science professor Blayne Haggart says it is also time to wake up from the delusions some may be still labouring under, the hope that somehow we can get our relationship with the U.S. back on track. Indeed, he calls Carney's approach "magical thinking."

The Carney government, and groups like the Business Council of Canada, have consistently sought some kind of agreement with Trump’s United States. Proposals and plans for deeper economic, energy and security integration have been mooted under titles “Fortress Am-Can” and “Fortress North America.” Trump’s latest outrage doesn’t seem to have changed Carney’s approach. Initial reports are that, in response to Trump’s tariffs, Carney plans to “intensify” trade negotiations with Trump.

Unfortunately for Canadians, these strategies are an example of cargo-cult policy-making, imported from a world that no longer exists. They’re designed for a world in which the United States could be trusted to keep its word and to respect Canadian sovereignty. In such a liberal-international world, trade agreements are a normal way of regulating sovereign economic relations, with at least the potential for creating win-win situations.

There can be little question in most citizens' minds that the days of peacefully co-existing with the southern behemoth are over. According to Professor Haggart, it is time for Carney to realize that fact.

First, if Trump can’t be trusted, then it is literally impossible for any trade agreement to provide the “certainty” that Carney and so many business leaders desire.

In other words, it makes no sense to renegotiate the USMCA, an agreement that Trump has arbitrarily violated, in order to keep Trump from arbitrarily attacking the Canadian economy. Any agreement would bind only Canada, not the United States, while any concessions would only lead to more demands.

Second, Canadians and Canadian businesses have to get used to uncertainty. The old relationship is dead. A country with two-party system in which one party is openly authoritarian, that elected Trump twice, cannot credibly commit to long-term international agreements.

These are hard truths that our politicos are finding difficulty in accepting,  but accept them they must:

It’s a political fight with an authoritarian country that seeks to dominate and subjugate Canada. Tariffs are the weapon, not the game.

Trump’s new tariffs expose, once again, the folly of pursuing deeper integration with an authoritarian United States. Concessions — what less-kind observers would call appeasement — buy you nothing. Integration with an untrustworthy, authoritarian partner invites only vassalization. What’s more, it’s likely to overwhelm Carney’s other nation-building policies, because the only sure way to increase Canadian autonomy from the United States is to stop integrating with the United States.

This magical thinking — the refusal to acknowledge the reality implied by Trump’s authoritarian nature — has allowed Carney to pretend that his approach will deliver autonomy at a relatively low cost, while avoiding a realistic discussion about alternatives and the cost of policies that could actually deliver autonomy.

While solutions may be hard to find, Haggart suggests they could begin with a Royal Commision into how best to navigate the future to ensure our autonomy from the U.S. I don't know what might come out of such a commission, but I do know that we cannot continue on our present course. Too much of our sovereignty has already been compromised. Like any other victim of an abusive relationship, we must now take strong measures to break free from the abuser.

 

UPDATED: An Exercise We Should Be Avoiding At All Costs

While I am all for exercises that help keep us healthy, supple and mobile, as Canadians there is one that we should never undertake: bending over for bullies. The flexibility it engenders is bad for our national reputation.  Unfortunately, however, it is looking increasingly like our federal government's exercise of choice in pursuing its relationship with the U.S.

Consider the 'suppleness' we have shown thus far: removal of most of the retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.; removal of the digital services tax; the pending removal of the CRTC's order for streaming giants to start paying 15% of their Canadian revenues toward productions in this country.

For all of this, what have we gotten from the U.S. and The Beast that leads it? Nothing, coupled with a claim of indifference to renewing the CUSMA agreement, and a demand to be 'compensated' for the new Gordie Howe bridge before it can open, despite the fact that it was built entirely on our dime.

These exercises in submission, a far cry from the elbows up we were urged to practise for so long, have yielded nothing but more American disdain, and it has undeniably gravely hurt our national reputation, as well as our national pride.

Columnist Mark McQueen offers his thoughts on what we have done to ourselves viv a vis the opening of the Gordie Howe bridge, which was to be officially opened today:

When asked for a reaction, the White House threw a wrench in the works, saying that the “president’s position on the Gordie Howe Bridge has not changed. The Administration remains committed to securing the best possible deal for the American people.”

One could take that statement to mean either that the bridge would be opening, despite the president’s prior objections. Or, ominously, that Ottawa’s announcement didn’t have the support of the U.S. Administration.

On Wednesday, the trump card was quickly laid, with the president telling reporters that he is “not looking to renew” the CUSMA. Period.

Sound a bit like The Beast's famous dealing? Guess it worked:

Terrible poker players that they are, the federal Liberals folded immediately. Early yesterday, Ottawa formally rescinded its invitations [for the opening].

What the feds could have done, according to McQueen, was something quite different.

 If Ottawa wanted to give life to its “Elbow’s Up” campaign, it would have been poetic to unilaterally open Howe’s namesake bridge. The president clearly wasn’t on board with the opening in the absence of a broader trade deal, meaning that Ottawa proceeded without Trump’s consent.

That was a valid, NHL Enforcer-like strategy, had the Liberals just stuck to it.

One of two things would have happened: Washington would have acquiesced, recognizing the economic benefits of improved border flows might help Republicans prevail in key Senate races in Michigan and Ohio this fall.

In the alternative, Washington was within their rights to keep their U.S. Customs plaza closed tight. But that wouldn’t have stopped Carney from capitalizing on the summer tourist season by opening the bridge to U.S. vacationers and truckers looking to take Gordie Howe into Canada.

Instead, Canada’s new ambassador to Washington, Mark Wiseman, allowed the worst of all scenarios to play out: Ottawa kicked the president in the shins, only to immediately capitulate, yet again.

And what final form that capitulation will take is the thing that troubles me most. Instead of keeping all the tolls until the bridge is paid for, will Carney try more appeasement? Will he offer half the bridge to the Americans? Will he agree that the Americans should get all the tolls? The possible scenarios are many, all with the same result: more national humiliation.

UPDATE: If you subscribe to The Globe, I'd suggest you read this article. If you don't, here are a few salient points:

The existing century-old Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by the billionaire Michigan-based Moroun family, who charge vehicles at least double the rate paid at publicly owned crossings in other parts of Ontario.

Despite having a monopoly for many years, the Morouns want more:

United States Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra are trying to negotiate a deal that would save the Moroun family from losing too much money once they have to compete with the publicly owned Gordie Howe bridge, The Globe reported.

The Moroun family, which also owns a trucking empire, has fought for years to shut down any competition to the Ambassador, pouring tens of millions of dollars into federal and state politics along the way. That includes donating more than US$1-million to a campaign group supporting U.S. President Donald Trump. The family had also employed a lobbying firm – Ballard Partners – well-connected within the Trump administration, counting Mr. Trump’s chief of staff, Susie Wiles, and his ex-attorney-general, Pam Bondi, among its former employees.

A commentator on the site suggested closing down the Canadian portion of the Ambassador Bridge, citing drug and gun traffic. That'll never happen, of course, but anyway, one can dream of a government with spine, eh?