Canada again? Is that necessary? Yes.

If the United States is going to meddle in Canada's politics and trash its economy, then Americans need to know something about Canada.

Carney

Cheat sheet: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation in January. He and the Liberal Party he led had become unpopular. On March 9 a leadership election within the Liberal Party chose Mark Carney, the former head of the Bank of Canada, to replace Trudeau. But that did not solve the Liberal Party's general unpopularity. Polls indicated that Canadian voters would elect instead a Conservative Party government led by Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre had a populist, conservative Trump-adjacent reputation.

President Trump's call for a tariff war with Canada, combined with the love-hate, seduction-abuse courtship of Canada as either a hostile, cheating, freeloading neighbor or the 51st state, changed voter perception of the issues. It put onto center stage Canadian sovereignty, its trade relationship with the U.S., and Trump. That put the Liberal Party back in contention in the scheduled Canadian election on April 28.

College classmate Sandford Borins is Canadian. He is a professor of Public Management Emeritus at the University of Toronto, having retired in July 2020 after a 45-year academic career. He maintains his own website where he shares his thoughts on politics and life in Canada.  This was first published there yesterday. https://sandfordborins.com

Sandford Borins wearing the King Charles III Coronation Medal for public service, which he recently received

Guest Post by Sandford Borins

          Another free trade election

In the party leaders’ debate in the 1988 Canadian federal election – a single-issue election about whether to accept the Free Trade Agreement the Mulroney Government negotiated with the Reagan Administration – Liberal leader John Turner hurled an accusation at Mulroney that now seems prophetic: 

"With the signature of a pen, you’ve thrown us into the north-south influence of the U.S. and will reduce us to a colony of the United States because, when the economic levers go, the political independence is sure to follow.” 

(I discuss this debate in a post following Brian Mulroney’s passing a year ago.) 

John Turner would not have been surprised about the context of this year’s election. If the 1988 election was about whether to enter into a free trade agreement with the U.S., this year’s election – called for Monday April 28 – is about how to resist Trump’s threat that, if Canada wants to retain the benefits of economic integration with the U.S., it must accept a hostile political takeover.

Coping with Interference 

The Reagan Administration, including President-elect George H.W. Bush, recognizing that this was a decision for Canadians to make, said nothing. The contrast is obvious with the Trump Administration’s threatened tariffs on April 2, Trump’s constant “51st state” dissing, and his musing about whether he prefers Liberal leader Mark Carney or Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre.

In my view, Prime Minister Carney has created an appropriate distance between the Trump Administration’s actions and the election campaign by saying that the Canadian Government will not negotiate with the US “until we get the respect we deserve as a sovereign nation [which is] not a high bar.” Further, he promises “a comprehensive discussion, not a discussion of one-off tariffs or of the latest initiative.” Carney and Trump haven’t spoken, and such a conversation now seems unlikely. Carney’s position implies not immediately retaliating against whatever tariffs the US imposes on April 2 and not having ministers rushing to Washington to negotiate. Such actions should be taken by the government that will take office shortly after the April 28 election. During the election campaign, an important issue will be how party leaders respond to the Trump Administration’s evolving trade policies or threats.

A stronger Secretary of State than Marco Rubio would forcefully tell Trump to keep his mouth shut about the Canadian election, but Trump will say what he wants. How will this affect the election? I’m not a pollster, but this is my guess. It is well known that Trump constantly reverses himself, and he’ll make statements supportive of Carney one day and Poilievre the other. And he’ll know that, for many Canadians, his endorsement is the kiss of death. Voters may conclude that Trump wants a minority government because it would be forced to constantly negotiate with the opposition parties to retain power and it could be defeated in a confidence vote. Such instability projects weakness.

At the start of the campaign, the Liberals and Conservatives are close in terms of the popular vote, and support for the NDP [the New Democratic Party, positioned to the left of the Liberal Party], Bloc Quebecois, and Greens is tanking. The Liberals’ vote (small margins in urban seats) is more efficient than the Conservatives’ (large margins in western and rural seats). Strategic voting to produce a majority government would lead to a large Liberal majority in the House of Commons. But, if the Liberal campaign falters, I could imagine strategic votes shifting to produce a Conservative majority.

Undecided voters will be watching the media, the polls, and the leaders’ debates on April 16 (French) and 17 (English) to decide which of the two major parties is most likely to win and then shifting to that party. I also expect that, because of the importance of this election, the turnout will be considerably higher than in recent elections.

The Boycott Movement

Another factor relevant to the election campaign is the boycott movement. Imports from the U.S. are sitting on the store shelves.  American wine, beer, and liquor have disappeared. 

Canadians’ current and planned future travel to the U.S. is down to pandemic levels. Provincial and municipal governments are changing their procurement policies to favour Canadian over U.S. suppliers. For example, the Ontario Government has cancelled its $100 million contract with Starlink to provide rural internet. It will be up to the new federal government to decide whether to cancel the mother of all procurements, the purchase of 88 F-35 aircraft, and switch to the Swedish Saab Gripen.

There is a similar irony here. Just as Trump’s attempt to disrupt the election campaign will make it more likely that the new government has a strong mandate, his mercantilist trade policies and bellicose foreign policy are leading to a deterioration of billions of dollars in the U.S.’s trade balance with Canada.

This is not a fight we wanted but, in this election, we will choose both our strategy and our leadership for it.

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com  Subscribe. Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]