By | Part of our Special Series: Always Canada. Never 51 | Reprinted with permission from The Hill Times
Following Donald Trump’s first threats to annex Canada, there was a country-wide energy to forge a new and more independent path, with political rhetoric to match. But with Trump’s “51st state” bluster diminishing, Mark Carney’s drama-free visit to the White House and a stay-the-course cabinet, Canadian business leaders seem eager to settle for the best “new-new-NAFTA” we can get.
This tendency toward the status quo is exactly what fuels Canada’s self-loathing: we’re not entrepreneurial enough, don’t take enough risks, don’t invest in our potential. Instead of charting ambitious, but uncertain, territory, we defer to the corporate lobbyist on our shoulder whispering “be practical.”
Playing it safe is both the wrong short-term tactic and the wrong long-term strategy. Sure, Canada could probably get a new deal if we don’t anger the president but it would undoubtedly be a downgrade – just as CUSMA is worse than NAFTA – because, as JD Vance likes to say, we don’t have the cards. We’d remain an underperforming “branch-plant economy,” selling our innovations and resources south for pennies on the dollar. And it would leave us exposed to the same risks of military and economic dependency currently on stark display.
Instead, Canada should lead the world’s middle powers in a collective and overdue weaning from American primacy by establishing a grand new security and economic alliance.
Ten countries – Canada, Australia, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K., Spain, Japan, South Korea and the Netherlands, or the “Core 10” – would amount to about the same GDP as the U.S., with significant natural resources and about six hundred million wealthy residents with massive buying power. From Robert Reich to The Economist, versions of this idea have been proposed, all with the objective of creating leverage against American economic aggression.
While each potential grouping of countries would have its complexities, even one formal meeting to discuss a new alliance would be enough to demonstrate that a break from U.S. dominance is possible. Announcing new multilateral partnerships in areas of American interest such as military procurement, pharmaceutical development, cloud infrastructure or resource refinement would solidify the group’s potential.
It is clear that President Trump fears this possibility.
Prime Minister Carney’s visit to France and the UK in March prompted Trump to threaten “large scale tariffs, far greater than currently planned” if the European Union were to work with Canada to “do economic harm to the USA.” His reaction proves the idea’s merit – America’s global trade war can only succeed against a divided opposition.
A new alliance is also the right long-term strategy. While the U.S.-led western countries had a long and successful run after World War II, we are all now facing similar crises, including decreasing housing affordability, increasing inequality and repeated failures to address climate change. As a result, belief in democracy, capitalism and global institutions are in steady, long-term decline, along with global comfort with American leadership.
Part of the issue is that, in many ways, America has become an outlier among its allies. On issues like health care, taxation, social security and climate, and on critical social metrics like inequality, life expectancy and gun violence, the middle powers of the Core 10 are both highly aligned and diverging further and further from the U.S. Common ground to solve our collective challenges will remain elusive with America at the table.
A middle power alliance, however, built on security and economic commitments patterned after NATO, would constitute an ambitious, creative and credible third power centre alongside the U.S. and China. Unshackled from American dominance, these countries so aligned in values and approaches could develop innovative new solutions to our common crises. Rather than trying to salvage a collapsing world order in which so many have lost faith, Canada and its Core 10 allies could build the next great era of democratic progress.
The U.S. will always be Canada’s largest trading partner and so a new deal is necessary. But we should resist the temptation to choose short-term comfort and certainty. By finally stepping into a more entrepreneurial and ambitious leadership role, not only can we improve our own hand in trade negotiations with America, but spark energy and enthusiasm for a new and better global superpower.
Share with a friend
Related reading
Blame the denominator, not the economy
Over the last couple of years, there have been countless articles warning of Canada’s poor economic performance. The mic drop has increasingly been Canada’s poor performance relative to peer countries on “GDP per capita,” with growth rankings used to draw a variety of sweeping, negative conclusions about Canada’s economy. SCP CEO Matthew Mendelsohn and Policy Director Dan Skilleter draw on economist and SCP Fellow Dr. Gillian Petit's new research to explain why GDP per capita is a deeply flawed measurement for evaluating rich countries - and is easily influenced by a variety of factors having little to do with economic performance or economic well-being.
Non-Permanent Residents and their impact on GDP per capita | Summary
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. She also estimates the expected impact on GDP per capita in the coming years due strictly to planned reductions in Canada's intake of non-permanent residents. Among key findings: Canada’s GDP per capita is misleading and should not be used as if it were the sole indicator of economic well-being. Plus, if we had maintained our temporary resident numbers at two percent of the population in recent years, Canada’s GDP per capita would look much more like our peer countries: a little bit ahead of countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia and a little bit lower than countries like Belgium, Sweden and France.
Non-Permanent Residents and their impact on GDP per capita | Report
New research by economist and SCP Fellow Gillian Petit estimates what Canada’s GDP per capita would have been over the past decade if Canada had kept our temporary resident numbers stable. She also estimates the expected impact on GDP per capita in the coming years due strictly to planned reductions in Canada's intake of non-permanent residents. Among key findings: Canada’s GDP per capita is misleading and should not be used as if it were the sole indicator of economic well-being. Plus, if we had maintained our temporary resident numbers at two percent of the population in recent years, Canada’s GDP per capita would look much more like our peer countries: a little bit ahead of countries like Germany, the United Kingdom and Australia and a little bit lower than countries like Belgium, Sweden and France.