What really is best for Canada — Trying to please Trump gets us nowhere

Andrew Coyne just made an argument that goes straight to the heart of Canada’s Trump problem.

If Washington is going to punish Canada no matter what Canada does, then at some point Canada has to stop making every decision based on how Donald Trump might react.

Coyne’s point was simple:

“If you lose no matter what you do, then you might as well do what you think is the best thing for the country.”

That is a provocative argument.

But after everything that has happened in this trade fight, I understand exactly what he means.

Canada has tried retaliation.

It has tried restraint.

It has negotiated.

It has made concessions.

It has kept channels open.

And yet the Trump administration is still preparing new 50 percent tariffs on nearly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods beginning August 19. Those tariffs would hit about 5.2 percent of U.S. goods imports from Canada and would apply even to some products that normally qualify for preferential treatment under CUSMA.

And despite intensive negotiations, the latest update is not particularly reassuring.

Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc has told Canada’s advisory committee that the two countries remain far apart on a draft agreement, even as negotiations continue through the weekend.

That is why Coyne’s argument matters.

Canada cannot build national economic policy around one question:

“What will Trump do if we do this?”

Because that gives Washington enormous control over Canadian decision making.

Take retaliation.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has criticized Canada for retaliating against American tariffs and has made clear Washington could respond again if Canada pushes back further. The White House has even cited Canadian countermeasures as justification for the new August 19 tariffs.

So what exactly is Canada supposed to do?

Accept U.S. tariffs quietly because responding could trigger more tariffs?

That is where the logic becomes circular.

And economically dangerous.

If Canadian governments begin avoiding policies that are clearly in Canada’s interest simply because they fear another reaction from Washington, then the real problem is no longer the tariff.

The problem is dependence.

This is why Canada’s long term response has to be much bigger than retaliation.

Build more trade inside Canada.

Get Canadian energy to more overseas customers.

Expand ports.

Develop critical minerals.

Strengthen manufacturing.

Attract investment.

Build more defence production.

Open more markets in Europe and Asia.

And make Canadian businesses less dependent on access to one foreign market.

Because diversification changes the balance of power.

If 90 percent of your customers are concentrated in one place, that customer has leverage.

If you have alternatives, threats become less effective.

That is also why I think Canada should be careful about making concessions simply because August 19 is approaching.

Canada reportedly wants meaningful relief from U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs, while Washington is seeking changes involving autos, dairy and access for American alcohol. Ottawa was dissatisfied with the latest U.S. offer because the tariff relief did not go far enough.

A bad deal does not become a good deal just because there is a deadline.

If Canada gives up important leverage only to postpone another confrontation, Trump can simply create another deadline later.

And businesses are already paying for this uncertainty.

Detroit automakers themselves are warning that proposed changes to North American trade rules could increase costs by at least $2 billion annually per automaker. General Motors expects tariff related expenses of roughly $2.5 billion to $3.5 billion this year, while Ford expects around a $1 billion hit.

That should tell everyone something.

This is not simply Canada losing and America winning.

When you dismantle deeply integrated supply chains, costs spread in both directions.

And that is why the smartest Canadian strategy cannot be endless retaliation either.

Coyne is not saying Canada should deliberately provoke Trump.

The better interpretation is that Canada should make decisions based primarily on Canadian interests rather than constantly trying to guess which Canadian policy might irritate Washington next.

If retaliation protects an important Canadian interest, consider it.

If restraint produces a better outcome, use restraint.

If diversifying trade makes Canada stronger, do it even if Washington dislikes it.

If buying Canadian strengthens strategic industries, pursue it where it makes economic sense.

If expanding energy exports to Asia reduces dependence on the U.S., build the infrastructure.

The objective should not be to anger Trump.

The objective should be to stop giving any American president enough economic leverage that Canada has to organize its entire strategy around avoiding their anger.

That is the bigger lesson from the last year and a half.

Canada cannot control Trump.

It cannot control what Washington announces next week.

But it can control what kind of economy Canada has five or ten years from now.

And if Canada uses this crisis to build a larger domestic market, stronger global trading relationships and more strategic industries at home, then eventually Washington’s ability to threaten Canada becomes smaller.

That is the part of Coyne’s argument I think is worth taking seriously.

At some point, Canada has to stop asking:

“What will Trump do?”

And start asking:

“What is actually best for Canada?”

Visit the takenote.ca HOME page for a colourful display of hundreds of other blogs which may interest or inspire you