Like a lot of (most?) Canadians, I’ve been heartened by the outpouring of Canadian patriotism in response to US President Donald Trump’s ongoing tariff threats. Nationalism can often lead to terrible things. But it this situation, it matters that it’s being deployed to stand up to tyranny. It’s a healthy reaction.

Yet I’ve also been perplexed by how the urgency reflected in Canadians’ almost-instinctive reaction to the US threat has not been matched by the federal government and our other elected leaders. While they’ve mostly mouthed the right words, their actions have not risen to the occasion.

I wasn’t sure if they understood the nature of the crisis: a needless provincial election, a leadership race. No unity cabinet or any other extraordinary measure that would signal to the rest of us that yes, this is an emergency. And certainly, neither Justin Trudeau nor any other member of his cabinet have thought it useful to actually tell Canadians what the plan is, beyond, “We’ll tariff you if you tariff us.” Which, great, but that’s not a long-term strategy.

That said, we all have eyes. We can read the news. And what I’ve seen to date is not at all comforting. Quite the opposite.

At the same time that Trudeau says that Canada as a 51^st state is a “non-starter,” that newly re-elected Ontario Premier Doug Ford is sporting ball caps reading “Canada is not for sale,” at the same time that there is an emerging consensus that Canada needs to reinforce our domestic economy, strengthen our military and diversify our trade, Canadian governments are taking steps that will accomplish the exact opposite, that will lead directly to the vassalization of the country.

 The strategy: Keep Trump happy, minimal diversification

I have no special inside sources. But from where I sit, it sure seems that since November, Canada has undertaken a consistent strategy to deal with Donald Trump: Do whatever it takes to keep him happy and the border open. This has resulted in a $1.5 billion border package to deal with a (non-existent) illegal cross-border fentanyl trade. This was so clearly a move made simply to appease Trump that it’s been painful to watch his government try to justify it as a sound policy response to an actual problem. (As an aside: this is not just a harmless giveaway. It reinvigourates the failed war on drugs. It conflates criminal activity with terrorism, something that was at one point at least incredibly controversial. And its Joint Strike Force idea will almost certainly expose Canadian personnel to the commission of human rights abuses by lawless US officials.)

Most recently, the Globe and Mail reports that:

Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly said Friday Ottawa is willing to discuss a new request from Washington that Canada match any U.S. tariffs imposed on China to create what U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is calling “fortress North America.”

For the kids reading this, the Fortress North America idea (which echoes Doug Ford’s Fortress Am-Cam) dates to the post-9/11 period (here’s something I wrote on it in 2001 when I was an economist with the Library of Parliament). The idea, then as now, is that in order to safeguard our economy, we have to give the US whatever it wants. Then, security; now, whatever idea wanders through Trump’s degenerate mind. What Joly’s talking about with respect to China is what’s called in the trade a common external tariff (CET). It’s a deeper form of economic integration beyond free trade: countries bind themselves not only to rules amongst themselves, but agree to treat other countries in the same way.

Most importantly for our purposes, both the border-security deal and a CET are forms of deeper integration with the United States. And while it was perhaps possible in 2001 to imagine that Canada would be treated as a junior partner in any friendly agreement, but still a partner, only the most delusional person could still think such a relationship is still possible after watching Trump berate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy like an ungrateful vassal in the Oval Office, on top of literally every single thing Trump has done since assuming office.

This seems to be the strategy: try to figure out what Trump wants, give it to him, and pray he doesn’t hurt us. I might not like it, and it won’t work, but them’s the facts as I see them.

Sleepwalking into annexation

I’ve also been struck by the lack of serious attention to strengthening the domestic economy. The only ideas that have gained any traction are internal free trade and building a new east-west pipeline, both of which have been under discussion forever. One could put this down to a lack of imagination, but slow-rolling any meaningful change allows Ottawa to avoid the biggest problem.

The uncomfortable reality is that Canadian diversification away from the United States is not in the US interest. As the US declines in global power, Canada will become increasingly important to its economic and physical security. Taking steps to diversify substantively away from the US will make Trump angry. The United States will take steps to stop it.

This isn’t speculation; it’s US policy. Article 32.10 of the USMCA effectively gives the United States a veto over Canada negotiating a trade agreement with “non-market” countries; i.e., China. It serves the same purpose as the proposed common external tariff: to prevent Canada from diversifying our economy and to tie is ever-more tightly to the United States.

And I guarantee you that the United States will take steps to thwart any substantive action that Canada takes to bolster its domestic economy. Preferential government procurement contracts for Canadian businesses (an absolute necessity)? Moves to reinforce public broadcasting or to encourage a domestic cultural sector? That’s already under fire in their attacks on Bill C-11. You name it: if it has a chance of succeeding in building up Canada’s economy, they will try to smash it.

Any substantive move we make, in other words, will risk Washington’s wrath. That’s always been the case, in a sense. What matters is how our leaders – how Canada – reacts.

My biggest concern regarding Canada’s approach to the United States is that I don’t know where our red line is. At what point do we say, No farther?

Right now, the federal government’s policy of wrath-avoiding – let’s call it what it is: appeasement – is short-sighted and against Canadian interests. If Trudeau really believes in diversifying and strengthening the Canadian economy, it’s also incoherent. It’s a policy of deeper integration, not diversification. It’s a policy that will end with the de facto annexation of Canada.

To repeat: The reality is, if Canada does anything significant to strengthen our own market, or diversify in ways the US doesn’t like, they will (again) threaten our market access. Or worse.

Instead of acknowledging this reality, the Liberal party under Trudeau is trying to have it both ways: to stand up for Canada while giving Trump what he wants. In doing so, they’re sleepwalking Canada into vassal state status.

This strategy assumes that we can buy peace in our time. We can’t. Not with the US as it is, and as it’s likely to be in the foreseeable. Appeasement will only invite more extortion attempts.

Time to choose

The problem with the Fortress North America and subsequent proposals wasn’t really that Canada couldn’t satisfy the United States, on security or whatever. As I noted in this missive back in 2011 (as I said, I’ve been at this a while), it’s that we’re different countries, with different values and interests. There is a border between us. The United States will always look out for itself first. So long as Canada remains independent, this is not a problem that can be solved, only managed. No agreement can buy certainty, and certainly no agreement with an authoritarian/fascist regime.

Canada’s current policy of appeasement and minimal effort at strengthening our economy is bound to fail to protect our independence. If we’re serious about remaining an independent country, we need a long-term strategy that reflects the reality that, at some point, Canada will have to do things that Trump won’t like. There will always be something for the US to complain about. At some point, if we dare speak up for ourselves, they’ll treat us like they treat Zelenskyy.

To be blunt, you can’t can’t both wrap yourself in the flag and simultaneously say you’re thinking about letting an authoritarian government tell us who we can and can’t trade with. It’s either Canada or the US. Time for the government, for our leaders, to choose their side.