Competing Visions of Canada's Future

Carney versus Smith

Just yesterday, I was bemoaning the state of the Canadian election campaign, as the major parties served up competing tax cuts instead of bold visions for the future of Canada.

In the intervening 24 hours, the rough outlines of two competing visions of Canada’s future have emerged. The fundamental point of contention: whether the United States can be considered an ally.

Mark Carney laid out his view: “The old relationship we had with the United States based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military co-operation is over.”

And Danielle Smith laid out hers, as she sat on a stage with Ben Shapiro, who spoke about how Canada could elect “solid allies” for Donald Trump.

For Carney, the Americans are no longer reliable trade partners or military allies. For Smith, Canada’s future depends on making ourselves a suitable ally for Trump’s United States.

This is both an empirical and normative debate.

Empirically, there is a question of whether any commitment the Trump administration makes is reliable. For Carney, the evidence of the Trump administration choosing to ignore the CUSMA agreement Trump 1.0 signed suggests the Americans can not be considered reliable allies. Trump’s stated willingness to abandon its military allies within NATO and his threats against Greenland’s and Canada’s sovereignty all contribute to the conclusion that Canada’s alliance with the United States is effectively dead.

For Smith, the partial exemption of energy from the first round of tariffs is perhaps enough to convince her that there are viable, meaningful deals to be made with the Trump administration. Threats against Canada’s sovereignty, in this view, should be seen as jokes, or reasonable reactions to the Canadian foolishness of electing Trudeau.

The normative debate is largely under the surface. What does it mean for Canada to be an ally with the United States under Trump? Daily, Trump is eroding the rule of law, consolidating power in his office, persecuting his enemies, and reshaping civil society in his own image. Canada trades with authoritarian regimes, but we do not generally ally ourselves closely with them. The Carney and Smith visions of Canada’s future differ, I think, in large part because Carney perceives a peril in alliance with an authoritarian American and Smith does not.

Smith, and those who agree with her, might counter this characterization by questioning the practicality of Carney’s stance. Does Canada have the capacity to disentangle itself from the United States? Would a military alliance with Europe and a reinvestment in the Canadian military be enough to ward off a determined United States? How large a hit to Canada’s standard of living are we willing to accept?

The onus is on Carney to offer a plan that addresses these questions. The onus is on Smith to make a case that alliance with the United States under Trump is not appeasing an authoritarian with designs on our sovereignty. The onus is on Poilievre to disentangle himself from 2024 and join the conversation.